YES: Did harsh CIA interrogations amount to torture - Term Paper Example

?Introduction: As the of political science progresses through upper level work, one is naturally faced with considering increasingly more complicated issues related to the morality of the decision-making process in the defense of our nation. The expectations of this essay are no different. The requirement is a scrutiny of the research followed by the provision of an opinion on the question of whether or not ‘harsh’ CIA interrogations in fact amounted to ‘torture’. While the reader may be offered insight into the mindset of this most secretive international ‘defense’ organization – as well as the argument for and against its use of various inquisition methods for securing information - there will be no doubt which perspective this writer conclusively supports. The denouement one will find at the conclusion of this writing will be based on an articulate but succinct explanation of all of the following: an initial statement of the issue as well as a history of ‘harsh’ interrogations and the political ethos of such; alternative resolutions to the problem of uncooperative antagonists and, finally, a personal stance on the subject at hand encased in the conclusion. Statement of Problem: ‘Harsh interrogation’ lately came to be adopted in definition by the Bush administration as enhanced questioning methods used by U.S. government military and intelligence organizations as a means of securing material that could be considered vital to our country’s national security. To many it is merely a clever and politically correct phrase that cloaks the more ominous connotation of ‘torture’ (albeit of the markedly softer, kinder type than that of times gone by) – and this type of persecution dates back to the earliest recordings of human history. As recently as World War II and the Vietnam War - heinous techniques were used by both allies and combatants to extract information for defense purposes (in fact, the methods were grotesque and frightening). They all called for the infliction of maximum pain and bodily (or emotional) harm as a means to ensure that individuals would supply accurate responses to tactical questions. Since the end of these conflicts – and in light of more recent skirmishes across the globe many (the U.S. included) have taken a more vociferous stance against the application of any type of physical, mental or emotional abuse for political ends. At the same time, though, after the 9/11 attacks on our country the President and those charged with the safety and protection of its people found themselves in the unenviable position of once again needing to gather accurate, timely, intelligence information imperative to the protection of our homeland. It seemed that our ‘polite’ requests were repeatedly rebuffed by terrorists whose sole purpose centered on bringing about the demise of America. It was only then that it became apparent “there had been little or no development of sustained capacity for interrogation practice, training, or research within intelligence or military communities in the post-Soviet period” (Swenson, 2006, xiii). Ergo – the development of what soon was coined – but admittedly first kept under wraps – ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques. These included such things as waterboarding, slapping, shaking, hypothermia and forcing prisoners to assume stress positions for long periods of time. Political Ethos of the Issue: When the use of enhanced interrogation techniques came to the public’s attention the military and intelligence organizations were quick to point out that they could in no way compare to the final moments of terror that American citizens had suffered as they were flown into the Twin Towers or were left to die horribly as first responders lost their own lives in valiant attempts to save them. These visions were offered to serve as justification that amounted to nothing more than ‘tit for tat’. For the purposes of time – we shall offer both a pro and con argument for the use of enhanced interrogation presented in some of the more notable publications. In a fairly recent newspaper article the current director of the National Intelligence was quoted as saying: “how easy it is to condemn the enhanced interrogation program on a bright sunny day in April 2009” (Hoekstra, Wall Street Journal, 2009). The author of the article continues in this vein by offering an argument in the form of supporting statements that buttress the argument the mood of the country was such that as a unified people we would have supported any decisions the government made on our behalf in their efforts to keep us safe. To be sure, the annals are cascading with supporting opinions and the authors of these opinions feel it is only as a back-seat driver and Monday morning quarterback we dare to question the tactics taken by the Administration and its minions to ensure our safety. But there were those who spoke out long and loud after it surfaced that our own government was engaged in subversive (and to some – even shameful) behavior. In their eyes we were no better than those we were attempting to disgrace in the eyes of the world. In another article from an esteemed newspaper the following opinion may be found: “torture is illegal under the Geneva Convention and waterboarding is prohibited under the U.S. Army Field Manual. I do not support torture; the United States does not support torture” (Anon., Boston Globe, 2010). Alternative Resolution: At the risk of presenting a ‘simple’ answer to a problem so complex that it reaches back to the birth of this nation and may be founded on what has been repeatedly referred to in political texts as our ‘hubris’ (even a certain smugness if you will) – or natural belief in our own superiority as a country and all that we stand for – arguably the most valuable alternative resolution may be the authentic efforts on behalf of Americans to take stock of our own behaviors – and work to correct these first. Certainly there are a number of experts in political matters who agree with this position. “While the idea of America remains an inspiration to all – American foreign policy has demeaned and besmirched the idea and dream of America. Not only reform of political institutions is required to rescue the country from its self-defeating foreign policies, but also a transformation of American political culture itself – a reform that requires extraordinary political leadership” (Loveman, 2010, 404). However, as the nation awaits this new attitude and transformation there are those in the military who continue to study the ethical options available to the military in regards to obtaining information from our adversaries. In a previously mentioned report experts in the field of interrogation referred to ‘educing information’ – which is proffered in this section as a clear and viable alternative to any form of torture. In its simplest form it means to ‘draw information from our enemies without the use of force – but instead drawing on the framework of democratic values as a negotiation technique’. This suggestion in itself is exceedingly complicated and would require no less than a thesis devoted solely to its understanding in order to educate the reader. Let it suffice to say that its implementation does not in any way rely on terror. Conclusion: War (and its many synonyms) seems to be an engrained part of the human experience – and so does torture. For the purposes of making the thought of its use palatable to its citizens, the Bush administration took the time to create an allegory for the time-worn practice of inflicting harm unto others to serve our own means. There is ample precedence for such behavior and in the view of some elder statesmen even a necessity for it. When ‘harsh’ interrogation techniques became public knowledge the moral and ethical implications of its use became part of a national conversation on which all sides weighed in. However, there are really only two viewpoints to the issue – either one supports the use of this ‘milder’ form of torture as a means to an end that ‘supposedly’ meets the defensive needs of this country – or one doesn’t. Although there are millions of words printed and/or stored on video that offer compelling arguments for both sides it is the opinion of this writer that in the end the question will be answered not by those who currently sit in power in Washington, D.C. but the younger generation (mine, if you will) who, having watched our role models plunder the world and its people with near wanton abandon, are apt to come together to create a more evolved ethos in which to operate - one that does not rely on the basest human denominator but a sincere desire to collaborate in the best interests of the human race at large. Our world has simply shrunk to such small proportions and its problems have become so enormous that we will soon be left with no other choice. Finally, the use of ‘torture’ in its earlier definition and the politically correct terminology of ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques should leave the enlightened citizens with a clear understanding that silence on the matter has been mistaken for approval of the use of inhumane strategies to garner intelligence information – and perhaps, for some, this is indeed true. Unfortunately while penning this composition banal cliches were given life for it became clear to me that such adages as “be the change you want to see” and “all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and do nothing” held authentic substance in the real world. And so, in response to the question – ‘do ‘harsh’ interrogations by the CIA amount to torture’ – this author responds in the affirmative. It is past time for platitudes and double-speak – it is only in the light of the cold, hard truth that true resolutions can be advanced. Torture in any form is not only unacceptable – it is wrong. References Anon. Brown and Coakley clash over suspected terrorists rights. Boston Globe, 5 Jan. 2010. Hoekstra, Peter. Congress knew about the interrogations. Wall Street Journal, 23 April, 2009. Loveman, Brian. No higher law: American foreign policy and the Western Hemisphere since 1776. University of North Carolina Press, 2010, pp. 539. Swenson, Russell.Educing information: Interrogation science and art.Foundations for the future.National Defense Institute College, 2006; pp.372. Read More