The United States Policy on Torture - Research Paper Example

? Research Memo Members of the SSCI Subj: Interrogation and Torture Section: “I understand and will uphold the ideals of academic honesty as stated in the Honor Code” Executive Summary The following report has been prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). The report considers the United States policy on torture. Within this context of understanding, international law is demonstrated as standing firmly against any torturous practices. The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006 is investigated as condoning measures of torture and detainment for enemy combatants. Prevailing strengths and weaknesses regarding the United States torture policy are examined, with the efficacy of torture remaining a contentious and politicized notion; in addition, there are emergent criticisms as to the Constitutionality of the United States current stance on torture, as well as to the means this stance positions the United States in the international community. Finally, a recommendation is advanced that states, for a confluence of reasons, the United States should pass legislation to eliminate the use of torture and bring the United States in direct accord with international law. Introduction In the period immediately following the 9/11 attacks the Bush administration implemented an active approach in combating terrorism. In addition to policy measures that enacted broad structural changes throughout the nation, regulations regarding the nature of interrogation were amended to reflect the administration’s then current stance on homeland security. While this report does not constitute an ethical response to these policy changes, general political and international sentiment emerged that questioned coercive interrogation techniques. In 2006, the United States passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as a means of addressing these concerns. The following memo constitutes a consideration of the status of torture under international law, as well as the 2006 U.S. legislation. In addition, pervading strengths and weaknesses regarding current legislation and the efficacy of torture are considered, before a recommendation is finally advanced. Background International Law The international community has instituted a number of broad ranging perspectives and regulations on torture. Perhaps the foundational international declaration on torture emerged directly after World War II through the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Article 5 of this document states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”i In addition to this document another seminal text is the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). This document was established in 1987 and outlines many pervading international perspectives on torture. Two highly notable features of this document are worth considering. Article 1 states, torture constitutes “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.”ii Precluded from this definition is pain and suffering that occurs as a result or incidental to lawful sanctions; still, Article 2 notes that there are no circumstances where torture can be implemented that would be in accord with the treaty sanctions. Military Commissions Act of 2006 In 2006 the Bush administration issued the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This document articulated the United States stance on detainment and torture. There are a number of prominent areas of consideration within this context of understanding. Among the most overarching concerns is the nature of this document as limiting the writ of habeas corpus when applied to terrorist or enemy combatants. In addition, the bill notes, “No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States is a party.”iii In this last understanding, the Act indicates that the United States ‘civil action’ – potentially torture – is not subject to United Nations or other such international law. Strength and Weaknesses Although a great many weaknesses to these policy measures exist, a number of pervading academics and researchers note that there is considerable strength in such a policy. The main argument from this perspective is that when the individual is guilty or contains necessary information torture can function as an effective means of gaining this essential information. It’s been argued that torture has, “saved lives, disrupted plots and provided “invaluable” information in the war against terrorism.”iv A prevailing consideration is the belief that oftentimes it is necessary to inflict such coercive tactics as waterboarding to save lives and ensure even more inhumane actions do not occur. As one might expect, exact statistical figures linking the efficacy of torture to improved information gathering, or a comprehensive account of its contributions to the war on terror are largely non-existent; still, a large amount of qualitative research exists supporting torture as an effective and necessary strategy. Considerable controversy has emerged as direct response to the United States stance on torture. In these regards, two main criticisms have been levied. The first criticism concerns the efficacy of torture procedures. While proponents contend that torture is an effective method of interrogation as it extracts vital information from enemy combatants, opponents argue that under such duress an individual is more likely to simply say anything as a means of escaping further harm. Indeed, psychological research has argued that, “given psychological pressure individuals will say a wide variety of things without regard for the truth.”v Still, a distinct and factual understanding of the efficacy of torture remains highly politicized and murky at best. In addition to arguments against the efficacy of torture, the United States has received considerable criticism both at home and abroad regarding the perceived lack of regard for human rights these torture measures allegedly contain. Within the main objections from members of the United States citizenry have been that the country’s torture regulations are a direct rebuke of the Constitution and its guarantees of a right to representation and a trial by jury. Internationally the United States has been criticized for ignoring its commitment to international law and the Geneva protocols that restrict such torturous measures. A final concern is that even if such torture mechanisms are effective, they represent a weakening of United States ethical principles. This weakening, it’s argued, could lead to retributive measures of torture being enacted against United States prisoners of war. Recommendations Taking into account the perspectives on domestic and international law, as well as pervading strengths and weaknesses the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) has developed a recommendation for the 112th Congress. During the period immediately following the attacks on 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States underwent a period of vigilance wherein national security became the primary concern. With the gradual resolution of these conflicts and the increasing effectiveness and stabilizing influence the Department of Homeland Security has had combating the threat of terror, the SSCI recommends an easement of torture policies. The SSCI has considered the difficulty in determining the exact efficacy of torture procedures and believes such ambiguity is indicative of a practice that is at best marginally effective and more likely counter-productive. It has further considered the importance of the United States functioning as a democratic leader in human rights with respect to the international community. Ultimately, the comprehensive confluence of these circumstances is the reason for the committee’s stance on the need to pass future legislation designed to eliminate the use of torture and bring the United States in direct accord with international law. Read More