The Effects Of Torture On Human Rights Violations

There are some that do not constitute the United States ' treatment of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as torture because there were different definitions of the word. According to the Third Geneva Convention, torture is defined as "acts of violence" and "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted." After the September 11, 2001 attack, the United States changed its definition of torture to "physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." To be regarded as torture, the act "must cause some lasting, though not necessarily permanent damage." Some disregard these acts as simply cruel treatment and do

The United States is considered one of the most powerful countries in the world. They have a well organized and trained armed forces. But, they were built with principles and moral standards. According to those rules, people could not do what they pleased all the time. The paper signed by the founding Fathers is, the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits the enforcers of the law to torture. Yet, it is still done. There is no straight statement that prohibits torture. An arguement of whether it can be legal or not is made, for the use of, retriving important information, the use of the 8th amendment and how 9/ 11 change some perspectives.

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The fundamental idea of torture is to inflict mental or physical pain onto a suspect to coerce them into revealing information we desire. This tactic is illegal because it violates the Constitution, and in addition, it violates international agreements that our nation has committed itself to. The general provisions of the Geneva Conference of 1949 prevent the use of torture in warfare; the document specifically outlaws “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment…” By violating these laws, particularly the Constitution, our nation

Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.

Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case

“The one lesson we 've learned from history is that we have not learned any of history 's lessons” (Unknown Author, n.d.). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) such as “waterboarding” and extraordinary rendition (aka “black sites”) by CIA agents for American intelligence interests and to analyze the drastically apposing views of the legalities, morality, and effectiveness of these methods. Is the CIA’s use of EITs and extraordinary rendition equivalent to torture, and therefore, acts in violation of international law? The definition of “torture” under statute 18 U.S.C. 2340 states, “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control” (United States Code, 2011). This definition expands with specific identifying characteristics of an act and varies to include humiliation of an individual. Of course, pain and suffering is a subjective experience. The worlds historical practice of “torture” reinforces lessons that human’s imaginative capacity for inflicting pain and terror on our fellow human is disgracefully boundless; yet, parallel behaviors of violence and humiliation reemerge with disturbing regularity (Smith, 2013).

Regarding the moral ambiguity of torture and the War on Terror, former President Barack Obama once said: “Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction” (qtd. in Piwowarczyk). Torture is a form of punishment the U.S. government and many governments use around the world. It is an effective tool to get information quickly, but under the Obama administration, the United States stopped all use of torture. While many governments still support the use of torture. The United States, however, went in a different direction taking torture out of all military personnel. Seeing how information can be extracted in a more civilized and humane way. Also, that any information given to the interrogators may be false or inaccurate, and that it is against international law, and that it puts any United States soldiers abroad in danger. Many citizens of the United States supported the policy, and many did not like the policy. The United States has used torture in the past to find the location of many terrorists that have threatened our homeland, and many of those instances lead to more American lives saved. Although torture has saved countless American lives, many of the strategies and forms of torture are unethical and inhumane to use on people of this world.

The United States citizens have been wrestling with the question of, whether their government intelligence agencies should be prohibited from using torture to gather information. According to Michael Ignatieff, this is the hardest case of what he describes as ‘lesser evil ethics’—a political ethics predicated on the idea that in emergencies leaders must choose between different evils Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, torture was viewed by most American’s as only actions that brutal dictators would employ on their citizens, to keep order within their country. However, this all changed when in May 2004, The New Yorker released photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The disturbing pictures were released on the internet showing bodies of naked Iraqis piled onto each other, others showed Iraqis being tortured and humiliated. There was a huge up roar, which caused the President at the time George W. Bush to publicly apologize, and threaten the job of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Soon after, the CIA Conformed the use of waterboarding on three Al-Qaida suspects in 2002 and 2003, which further annihilated the topic. Since these reports, torture has been in the forefront of national politics, and the public opinion has been struggling to commit on whether torture is right or wrong.

“Torture and abusive interrogation tactics are illegal under both U.S. law and international law. Torture is prohibited under federal law, as are lesser forms of detainee abuse such as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” (Human Rights First)

The author, Melissa Mae, explains the issue, along with the opposing sides, clearly. Mae begins the essay by introducing the issue. She says the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib gained attention around 2004. Americans became concerned when they found out the government was using torture and were extremely upset about it. She states that people believed torture was being used as a part of the government’s “interrogation of war-on-terror detainees.” Though she tells the readers what the issue is, she never fully explains it. She only tells us that the essays she wrote about were written around the time the debate was heating up. A positive trait about this essay is that she stated the issue in the first paragraph.

A prison located in Iraq, “Abu Ghraib” was occupied by United States army in the early 2000s, where Iraqi detainees and tortured. While the United States hoped to acquire information about terror in hopes to save a greater number of people, reducing other people to merely a means was unethical. In this review of the case of Abu Ghraib, I will examine various events and possible contributing factors to unethical treatments of prisoners. Further, This essay will explore two opposing perspectives for and against reasoning for tortures. To respond to the unethical nature of the guards' behavior, I will apply Kant's method to ethics. Additionally, while trying to explain why the United States actions, I will refer to Utilitarianism. Lastly, This

Torture was considered to be somewhat justified in such incidents known as the ticking time bomb scenario. For there to be a justification for the necessity of torture to protect lives there must be six key items present: 1) There must be a planned attack. 2) The captive must know about the planned attack. 3) Torture must be the only way to obtain the information. 4) The captive must be persuaded to provide the information. 5) The information must be accurate. 6) If the information is obtained, there must be time and means to prevent the attack. The ticking time bomb scenario did not pertain to Abu Ghraib, since the detainees were merely Iraqi delinquents who did not have knowledge of future planned attacks on the United States by al Qaeda.

Interrogational torture is one of the many tough ethical questions that people debate about in the United States. Is it right or is it wrong? Many believe that the United States does not practice intense interrogational acts such as torture. Many people have fought to abolish any form of torture while many fight to keep some forms of it to help keep the peace. Whether you believe in it or not, torture is and will always be an ethical dilemma that comes up.

In 1949, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was created to prohibit immoral, cruel and degrading punishment toward prisoners during wartime. The United States ratified this covenant and became a member of the Geneva Conventions. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, a series of human abuses occurred from October through December of 2003 where American military personnel have conducted acts of brutality and immoral behavior toward Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. The inhumane “interrogation method” of the American military have clearly violated Article 2 and 4 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 2.2 states “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state

only a supporting role to the Police and Metropolitan Guards in the counterinsurgency, was ordered into action. They relied on mass arrests, torture to allegedly gain info on Tupamaros, and large cordon-and-search operations, where warrants weren’t needed. This was done to those allegedly accused of politically motivated crimes. The tortures consisted of: deprivation of water and food, prohibition to take care of psychological needs in the usual places, wrenching of limbs, use of handcuff and even having their heads submerged under water until they began to suffocate. The use of electrical needles, burning genital organs and anus, with cigarettes, were other accounts of torture. These brutalities had been practiced on innocent people who had yet to be tried in court.