Recommendations on the matter of enhanced interrogation and the War on Terror - Case Study Example

Issues The ethical issue that faces the intelligence community is the fact that torture is condemned by the human rights groups; so many people are viewing it as unethical. The advocating of human rights globally is known to be spearheaded by the United States of America; hence, when it is using torture as a method of interrogation, it means going against their principles. If enhanced interrogation is used on a level that is humane and safe, then the ethical dilemma encountered by interrogators will be easier to handle.

The ethical theory of utilitarianism stipulates that the consequences of an action are justifiable morally if they result in more good than harm (Mill 2007). If one considers enhanced interrogation in a case where the suffering of a detainee results in saving the lives of thousands of people, then the ethical issue no longer presents itself. It is important to note that most terrorists are followers of Islam; hence they view giving information as betraying their faith, making them impermeable by ordinary interrogation methods.

This makes it hard for the intelligence community to follow regulations set by the United Nations on how uninformed combatants should are being treated. For instance subjecting them to physical harm is prohibited (Angelovicova, 2009). The issue is raising constitutional matters. The first one is based on international law while the second is resting on the laws enacted in the United States of America and regulating how military personnel are being treated in the battlefield. According to Article 5 of the Geneva Convention, a detainee’s status is determined by a tribunal whether he or she is an unlawful combatant according to the laws and regulation of the country (Linnan 2008).

However, before the tribunal determines the fate of the detainee, the country should be treating and referring to him as a prisoner of war. My recommendation dealing with this issue is that detainee should be subjected to enhanced interrogation since they are termed as unlawful combatants by tribunals, military courts, and civilian courts in the United States of America (Angelovicova 2009). Moreover, a huge percentage of detainees are people known to have carried out terror attacks on the American soil and in other countries, thus rendering them unlawful combatants.

This situation has a wide range of stakeholders. First and foremost, each and every country around the world is a stakeholder in this issue since they are all affected by terrorism. The intelligence community is also a stakeholder since they are tasked with getting information that will help protect thousands from terrorism. The intelligence community wants to be allowed to use enhanced interrogation in order to yield positive results. Options An alternative option that the intelligence community has is to ensure that terrorist suspects are offered deals that are acceptable according to Islamic standards.

This is where green cards, good education for family members, good healthcare among others are offered to detainees as part of their plea bargains. However, this should be done carefully to ensure the detainee has been completely turned and posses no terror threat whatsoever. Another option is to ensure that terror threats are dealt with precision in order to ensure that te