Torture and International Conventions - Essay Example

?Original Texts: Jeremy Waldron (http www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/oct/25/is-this-torture-necessary But trading off liberty against security has a treacherous logic. It beckons us in with easy cases—the trivial amount of freedom restricted when we are made to take our shoes off at the security checkpoint before we board an airplane is the price of an assurance that we will not be blown up by any imitators of Richard Reid. But it is also a logic that has been used to justify spying without a warrant, mass detentions, incarceration without trial, and abusive interrogation. In each case, we are told, some safeguards and rights that were formerly regarded as civil liberties have to be given up in the interests of security. But after a while we start to wonder what security can possibly mean, when so much of what people have struggled to secure in this country—the Constitution, basic human rights, and the rule of law—seems to be going out the window. Convention Against Torture (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html) Article 3 1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Article 4 1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. Christopher Hitchens (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808?currentPage=2) Torture advocates hide behind the argument that an open discussion about specific American interrogation techniques will aid the enemy. Yet, convicted Al Qaeda members and innocent captives who were released to their host nations have already debriefed the world through hundreds of interviews, movies and documentaries on exactly what methods they were subjected to and how they endured. Our own missteps have created a cadre of highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda’s own virtual sere school for terrorists. Which returns us to my starting point, about the distinction between training for something and training to resist it. One used to be told—and surely with truth—that the lethal fanatics of al-Qaeda were schooled to lie, and instructed to claim that they had been tortured and maltreated whether they had been tortured and maltreated or not. Did we notice what a frontier we had crossed when we admitted and even proclaimed that their stories might in fact be true? I had only a very slight encounter on that frontier, but I still wish that my experience were the only way in which the words “waterboard” and “American” could be mentioned in the same (gasping and sobbing) breath. Michael Levin (http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/torture.html) There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory. Moreover, these situations are moving from the realm of imagination to fact. Suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will detonate at noon on July 4 unless ... here follow the usual demands for money and release of his friends from jail. Suppose, further, that he is caught at 10 a.m on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the bomb is. What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign him, millions of people will die. If the only way to save those lives is to subject the terrorist to the most excruciating possible pain, what grounds can there be for not doing so? I suggest there are none. In any case, I ask you to face the question with an open mind. Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality. Torture is barbaric? Mass murder is far more barbaric. Indeed, letting millions of innocents die in deference to one who flaunts his guilt is moral cowardice, an unwillingness to dirty one's hands. If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn't bring yourself to apply the electrodes? PARAPHRASES: The Case Against Torture The most powerful argument against torture, wrote Jeremy Waldron, is that its permission is supposedly tantamount to empowering the state to violate human rights, including those of its citizens in the name of some national security concerns. This is seen as dangerous because torture such as violent and abusive interrogation techniques forms part of a wider measure or campaign that systematically erode civil liberties, along with spying without warrant, mass detention, jailing without due process, among others. All in all, for the author, it all boils down to the idea of determining what is more important – rights or security. This reference is crucial because it establishes one of the most important arguments against torture, that of the encroachment of human rights in favor of a more straightforward or "facilitated" approach to solving problems such as terrorism. This would appeal to the emotion of the readers because the variables cited already pointed to the danger of the issue to their very own persons. The argumentative dimension of the paper is, hence, reinforced. A detached reader may be awakened into attention and take note about the implications of what he is reading. First Hand Account In order to comment authoritatively on the subject, Vanity Fair correspondent Christopher Hichens subjected himself voluntarily to torture. Particularly, he chose one of the most controversial forms of abusive interrogation, which is waterboarding. He was able to detail the process and capture the dread of both the psychological and physical harm. Through his experience, he pointed out that the interrogatory approach is, indeed, torture, that it is not humane and, hence, must not be condoned. The most important insight that he was able to contribute, however, is the argument that torture can be studied and, therefore, circumvented by the very individuals they were designed for, hence, defeating its efficacy and purpose. His piece, in itself, is a glaring example with regards to how interrogatory practices are available for everyone to see so that it is easy to exploit them to their subjects’ advantage. What Hichens accomplished with his caper is to provide a refreshing and detailed insight on torture - what it feels like first-hand from the point of view of an objective observer. The media has been the main source of our information on the subject and people - whether consciously or subconsciously - are averse to believing everything that has been reported so far. This reference is a credible and unique evidence to achieve and strengthen pathos in the way that the paper presents its case. A Necessary Evil Out of all the drumbeating against torture, there are sectors that are actually in favor of it or at least sanctioning it up to a certain degree. Michael Levin, for instance, believes that there are times when it is morally mandatory. He cited several scenarios that illustrate his point. The gist, for the author, is that torture can actually function as a necessary evil in order to avoid a greater tragedy. His explanations are peppered by convincing situations wherein lives can be actually saved in exchange for violence and abuse inflicted on few individuals. Levin actually represents the social dilemma about torture. On one hand, the very act is inhumane, undignified, barbaric and deplorable. On the other, there is the idea that today, it could prevent catastrophes such as the loss of lives of thousands of inocent lives. There is a necessity to mention this in the paper. It balances the arguments about modern perspectives on torture so that the readers could say that the paper is not biased and that they could form their own opinions effectively after reading it. Torture and International Conventions In the discourse of torture, several references are available found in international conventions and agreements, particularly if there is a need to investigate and examine torture as a matter of state policy. For instance, there is the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which explicitly prohibits any form of torture and encourages all UN member states to outlaw these activities. Articles 3 and 4, specifically outline the framework by which this measure should be adopted and promulgated. The need to cite international conventions on torture and human rights is fundamental if the paper needs to examine it in the context of policy. For example, if the United States sanction torture on certain cases, it certainly violates specific international agreements it is party to. This creates several dilemmas both from the state's position and that of the international body such as the United Nations. Bibliography Hitchens, Christopher. "Believe Me, It's Torture." Vanity Fair. 2011. Web. 3 May 2011. Levin, Michael. "The Case for Torture," Brandeis University. N.d. Web. 3 May 2011. United Nations. "Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment." United Nations. 1997. Web. 2 May 2011. Waldron, Jeremy. "Is This Torture Necessary?" The New York Review of Books. 2007. Web. 2 May 2011. Read More