Torture in Interrogation - Essay Example

12 April Torture in Interrogation National security has always been a top priority for any country. With the recent developments in terrorist tactics, interrogation has become an important subject and a source of reliable information to counter any threats. This information is even used to guard against enemy tactics and propose counter measures for our own forces. The interrogation depends mainly on torture techniques. Which are against the human rights and this violation is made in the name of national security. There is a thin line between torturing and national security priorities. Both are important and it is crucial to remain in limits while interrogating any suspects, whether terrorists or local criminals. The issue came into spotlight with the release of torture pictures and videos of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp (Leigh et al. 1). Prisoners were kept in a miserable condition and suicide attempts were a routine. The detention facility was accused of extreme torturing and interrogation. There have been deaths in the prison and released detainees gave in detail account of torturing activities carried out by the US. These activities were clearly a human rights violation and more importantly violated the Geneva Convention for the interrogation and captivity of prisoners of war. The paper will look into the matter and discuss the use of torture during interrogation. The Geneva Convention has set aside rules and principles for conduct with prisoners or war. Their captivity and the use of torture have all been explained in detail in the convention. The convention article rules against torture in interrogation by stating that no physical or mental torture can be used for interrogation of prisoners. Prisoners must also be given rights to medical facility, hygiene, food, clothing and quarters (Tomasevski 8). They must also be allowed for their religious practices and appropriate physical activity must also be planned. In simple, the laws lay basis for basic human rights. Torturing during interrogation is not allowed and simply a violation of the convention and basic human rights. To violate these standards is simply a violation against humanity. The US administrations have taken stance to legalize torturing techniques and narrowly defined the parameters of interrogation. Legislation could not be passed even though with ninety to nine approval rates by senate, after being vetoed by President Bush at the time (Sullivan 1). Terrorists are considered as monsters and mass murderers and are not worthy of humane treatment. The debate was highlighted in 2005 by McCain. He presented exceptional scenarios like ticking time bomb and slow fuse cases (Krauthammer 2). The urgency of these exceptional cases required torture. In simple even his policy required use of torture. Torturing is against the very fundamentals of US and is the opposite of freedom. Prisoners are tortured and interrogated on the basis of National Security priorities. The logic that torturing is necessary to extract information is used as a stance against the issue. Though, torturing is a quick way to extract information, but it is something against humanity and also the Geneva Convention. There can be no basis as to torture a human being. It is to take into consideration that most prisoners do not possess valuable or critical information and are tortured without any solid base. This further complicates the issue and raises question of using torture techniques. Many of the prisoners are tortured to the breaking point where they develop psychological or physical disorders. This fact can be taken into account by the figures at Guantanamo Bay. Similarly, at Abu Ghraib Prison almost ninety percent of prisoners were not guilty and released after interrogation and torture (Sullivan 2). They did not possess any critical information. Terrorists are not termed as prisoners of war as per the US stance, but torture in any form on a human being is a violation of basic human rights and simply a crime against humanity. Torture has been termed necessary for interrogation process. But then how can the laws suggest extracting information without torturing. Prisoners must be trialed and brought to justice; instead they are kept for longer durations in captivity. There is a very thin line between torture and legitimate interrogation techniques. Furthermore, this difference is not accepted universally. Various standards and methods are practiced over the globe, but some of the common legitimate techniques are highlighted; The most effective interrogation method is direct communication with the prisoner. This method is effective for cooperating prisoners and involves direct questioning without any deception or harsh attitude (Elsea 24). The Incentives Approach includes incentives. Incentives like quarters, food, hygiene and health facilities are provided as long as the prisoner is cooperating. They can be taken away if the prisoner is not cooperative (Elsea 25). If the prisoner has some hidden information, he has fear. Interrogator can threaten in an overpowering manner to heighten the fear inside a prisoner and extract critical information without torture (Elsea 28). This approach is known as Fear-Up Harsh. The Pride and Ego approach is used to trick prisoner into handling information by flattery or abusive language. Prisoner’s loyalty, abilities, intelligence and leadership qualities can be shaken by negative remarks as well to soften up his inner resistance to hide information (Elsea 29). The Futility Approach is aimed to give prisoner a feeling that without cooperation there is no way out. His resistance is futile and there is no need to hide any information. The approach is used to remove doubts in a prisoner’s mind that he can leave the interrogation without giving information (Elsea 29). The We Know All Approach is used to make the prisoner believe that all of information has been achieved through other sources. The interrogator asks question which he already knows to make believe that everything is known. Questions can then be asked in a confirmatory tone. (Elsea 29) Torturing is simply an act against humanity and there is no excuse to use techniques against any human, either a terrorist or local criminals. National Security cannot be an excuse to violate basic human rights. Legitimate interrogation techniques have been laid down in Geneva Convention and must be respected by all. Terrorists are human beings and by violating human rights in detention facilities, there is no difference between a terrorist and a government official. They must be treated as prisoners of war and provided with basic facilities as per the Geneva Convention. The account of violations in Guantanamo Bay was perhaps the worst kind of violation in modern history. Such activities are an eye opener and must be avoided in the future. The state sanctioned torture as in the case of US only allows expansion of this act. Till now, the legal parameters against torturing are in a raw shape. The United Nations have stepped in and carried out meetings with US Department of State against torturing (Bellinger 1). The legitimate interrogation techniques are proven to work and must be followed. Activities must be observed and taken into account seriously. Torturing whether physical or mental is wrong and they are simply a violation of basic human rights. Works Cited Elsea, Jennifer. Lawfulness of Interrogation Techniques under the Geneva Conventions. Washington: The Library of Congress, 2004. Print. Leigh, David, et al. “Guantanamo Leaks Lift Lid on World’s Most Controversial Prison.” theguardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 25 Apr. 2011. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. Tomasevski, Katharina. The Right to Food: Guide Through Applicable International Law. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987. Print. Sullivan, Andrew. “The Abolition of Torture.” The New Republic. TNR, 19 Dec. 2005. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. Krauthammer, Charles. “The Truth About Torture.” Standard. Weekly Standard, 5 Dec. 2005. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. Bellinger, John. “US Meeting with UN Committee Against Torture.” US Department of State. n.p. 5 May. 2006. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. Read More