Ethics of Coercive Interrogation - Research Paper Example

Ethics of Coercive Interrogation Introduction Coercive interrogation is the use of severe interrogation methods like torture, hypothermia and water-boarding among many others to gain intelligence information. Torture is abhorrent. Use to torture to gain information from suspects is unequivocally condemned by almost everyone, but to some extent it proves effective in the gathering of intelligence information in the wake of national insecurity. Most governments consider torture as an indispensable interrogation tool. Coercive interrogation may lead to giving of false information, inflicting mental health consequences of torture survivors and perpetrators, social psychological conditions that lead to acts of cruelty (Gani, Mathew, & Mathew, p. 172). To some extent in certain situations, torture is a justifiable means of acquiring information thus permissible in exceptional cases. The most tabled argument is that it protects the common good as by torturing one many are saved, finally it is way of acting tough to few who deserve it. States like Israel and the US have been using questionable ways of interrogation in the attempt to fight war against terror. Citing the example in the Israeli Supreme Court case with a perfect scenario where torturing one individual may be acceptable as a means of saving many innocent lives. Though torture is used, there is an attempt to justify it with national security and national interest at stake, it is against the international law on humanity as it violates human rights. In contrast, security organs can obtain an order permitting torture if issued by a judge. Discussion According to Dorfman, there should be no incidence of torture especially if it is being done in consideration of the citizens in a democracy. Marks and Claphan argue that torture diminishes that person who commits torture in the name of doing public good. This is because when fighting terror you actually bring terror leading to downward spirals of panic in the process eroding the good social fabric of peaceful coexistence among people, because once torture is permitted the society is on the brink of lawlessness and many innocent civilians are harmed in the process. It has been found that information gained from torture has had minimal assistance to the parties involved. Beccaria says that torture, “…is a route of for the acquittal of the robust ruffians and the conviction of the weak innocents.” This is because when one is tortured he/she is bound to admit on anything. Therefore there is need for an international legislation that will stipulate a total ban on any torturous activities. The International Association of Penal Law (IAPL) drafted a law that spelt out that torture is not to be allowed in any nation. The law stated that under no circumstance shall any State Party permit or tolerate any cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Nonetheless, the US argued that cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment is a comparative term saying, “international standards are more difficult to achieve and what might constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in times of peace might not rise to that level during emergency conditions.” Article 2, of Geneva Convention. In Article 3 there is an inclusion of ill treatment within the scope of prohibition. The greatest strength of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention is that the language with regard to torture remained strong and unconditional and the clause that ‘no exceptional circumstances’ could be invoked as justification for torture remained in the final text. To attain the full functioning of the international law is proving to be a hurdle because of the actors involved in the drafting process and the presence of obstructionists who are indispensable because they represent a big power like the US. But the presence of neutral actors in the drafting process is equally important, too. With the advance of time in the course of history the arguments on international law become off limit along the way of international discourse and law progresses as it is in the case of torture (Cherneva,pp. 2-12). The coercive techniques used by the US Army to mistreat detainees, like those at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq amounted to torture. The CIA manuals Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual-1983 and KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation –July 1963 recommended that prisoner interrogation to include threat of violence and deprivation. 1960 manual says, the interrogator “is able to manipulate the subject’s environment.” The 1983 manual says, “To create an unpleasant or intolerable situation, to disrupt patterns of time, space and sensory perception.” According to the C.I.A on the manual stating: "The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults or exposure to inhumane treatment of any kind as to aid to interrogation is prohibited by law, both international and domestic, it is neither authorized nor condoned "-thus making it clear that authorities were well versed that these abusive practices were illegal and immoral, even as they continued during that time and then now. The use of coercive techniques just like the US Forces used for the torturing of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison lowers the moral caliber of the organization that utilizes it and corrupts those that solely depend on it to gain access to information (Prisoner Abuse: Patterns from the Past,145-340). In the wake of sporadic attacks by terrorist elements, those who were captured would be tortured and forced to give information about their accomplices. The perpetrators of the vice would later defend their actions arguing that they used professional interrogation technique. This amounts to violation of the federal laws besides the interrogation techniques qualifying as torture by the standards of international law. Therefore, use of coercive interrogation as an interrogation tool is not the appropriate way of producing intelligence information to prevent acts of terrorism (Rumney, pp. 28-32). Through the use of torturous techniques terrorism will not be fought comprehensively thus the need to incorporate policies that destroy terrorist structures through exerting strong pressure by way of criminal investigation, using administrative instruments to stem extremism. Next, it is strengthening international cooperation and exchange of data on suspicious immigrants and terrorist. Lastly, it is eliminating the causes of terrorism (Albrecht, p. 49). It is vital to take into account that the use of torture may not lead to disclosure of accurate information. Moreover, the torture survivors have reported giving incomplete information mixed with false information so that they could appease the torturer but not reveal the truth. Although important information may be obtained after torturing, it is not easy to detect if less coercive forms of interrogation might have yielded better results. This is because people are perceived as threats to national security or terrorist sympathizers when interrogated and it is suspected they withhold vital information, so their interrogators resort to torture if they believe the suspect is lying (Posner & Vermeule, p. 699). According to Kassin, Goldstein, and Savitsky (54), interrogators are most likely to become more coercive when questioning innocent suspects who are believed to be lying, because truthful suspects are perceived as resistant and defiant. Therefore, trained interrogators are likely to resort to torture when faced with constant denials by the innocent suspects. In such highly charged emotional situations, torture may be used as a form of punishment for the suspects due to frustration and desperation by the interrogators. The major element of coercion is time, explaining why false confessions are given as a result of long interrogations, because the person is worn out and thus having an impaired ability to resist pressure. In the civilian criminal justice system the presence of institutional restraints is aimed at reducing coerciveness. Torture inflicts mental consequences on the victims. These include stress, comobird conditions, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other symptoms of disabities (p.190). Torture has long lasting psychological consequences. They include: 1) psychological symptoms like anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal; 2) cognitive symptoms like impaired memory and confusion; and 3) neuro-vegetative symptoms like insomnia and having nightmares (Costanzo & Gerrity, p. 190). Bandeira (49-59) argues that provision of avenues for the torture victims to voice their concerns is a way of healing them psychologically when they open up their thoughts and feelings. According to Gewen (34), the use of torture is anecdotal because something being done for so long does not mean the activity is flawed. Moreover, the issue of torture is complex because it does not necessarily give accurate information, other factors are also to be considered, like the costs of using torture. Conclusion It is very difficult to differentiate between true and false information given by a suspect during coercive interrogation. Access to false information will lead to putting the soldiers at risk and also the lives of civilians will also be in jeopardy. In summary, the findings on false information are that as the coerciveness of the interrogation increases so does the probability of giving a false confession. Torture does not yield any reliable information, though at times of stress it satisfies the psychological needs. Moreover, it counters the sense of desperation thus reassuring the interrogators that they are in control and getting that feeling of empowerment. Particularly, in an aftermath of a ferocious attack like what transpired in 9/11/2001 torture may be emotionally appealing. In contrast, use of torture is motivated by the fact desire to acquire important information, or to overcome a sense of powerlessness, or even the desire to revenge. Basoglu (142) argues that “…..torture generates intense hated and desire for vengeance against the perpetrators, radicalizing even ordinary people with no strong political views.” Finally, there have been both national and international efforts in addressing the issue of torture. Like in the US, the enactment of Torture Victims Relief Act gives a helping hand in domestic and foreign programs and centers to treat the victim of torture. The use of torture based interrogation should be discouraged at all costs. This is because it is an inefficient way of extracting information and chances are that it will produce faulty intelligence. In addition, coercive interrogative techniques like torture have severe, long term negative effects for survivors, perpetrators and communities. Countries that use torture have damaged reputations thus creating hostility towards their troops and anything associated with them. This later places them in the category of oppressive regimes in the world. To sum up, any purported benefits of torture must be measured against these substantial proven costs. I would argue that enough evidence exists to support the position that torture is, in fact, not justifiable by any means. Much emphasis is to be invested in discussions regarding how events that lead to the supposed need for torture can be prevented before they occur. Works Cited Albrecht, H.-J. (2006, June 23). Counterterrorism Policies in Germany . Retrieved November 27, 2012, from Max Plank Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law: http://www.scribd.com/doc/53675038/Albrecht-Counter-Terrorism-Policies Bandeira, M. (2011, February 11). There is no Grey. Retrieved November 26, 2012, from Sanotorture: The South African No Torture Consortium: http://sanotorture.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/ Cherneva, I. (2012, June 1). The Drafting History of Article 2 of the Convention Against Torture . Retrieved November 26, 2012, from Essex Human Rights Review: http://projects.essex.ac.uk/ehrr/V9N1/CHERNEVA.pdf Costanzo, M. A., & Gerrity, E. (2009, June 23). The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture. Retrieved November 26, 2012, from Social Issues nad Policy Review: http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf Gani, M., Mathew, P., & Mathew, P. (2008). Fresh Perspectives on the 'War on Terror'. Canberra: ANU E Press. James J. F. Forest (ed). Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2007. Praeger Security International Online. 1 Nov 2012. National Defense Intelligence College. Interrogation World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. Washington DC: NDIC Press, 2008. Print Posner, E. A., & Vermeule, A. (2008, January 13). Shuold Coercive Interrogation be Leglised? Retrieved November 26, 2012, from :www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/104/4/Posner_Vermeule.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid Prisoner Abuse: Patterns from the Past. (1995-2004, February 22). Retrieved September 26, 2012, from The National Security Archive: http://arrog.antville.org/tags/too%20dark%20yet?page=2 Roth, K., M. Worden, A. D. Bernstein, T. Malinowski, et al, M. Ignatieff, and J. McCain. Torture, does it make us safer? Is it ever ok? : A human rights perspective. New York, NY: New Press, the 2005. Print Rumney, P. (2008, December 18). Is Coercive Interrogation of Terrorist Suspects Effective? A Response to Bagaric and Clarke. Retrieved November 27, 2012, from Social Science Research Network: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1316949 Read More