The Bybee Torture Memo
On August 1, 2002, Justice Jay Bybee submitted the “Bybee Memo” or the ‘Torture Memo”, which describes the behavior that U.S. officials must exercise when interrogating outside of the continental U.S. as governed by the UN Convention Against Torture. Although this memo was rendered inoperable by the Bush Administration in 2004; for years, it gave license to American troops to inflict cruel amounts of pain, effectively “torture” upon their prisoners under the label of “coercive interrogation”. Michael Hatfield, a Professor at Texas Tech School of Law published his rebuttal to the Bybee Memo indicating that from a natural law perspective that torture, even disguised as “coercive interrogation” was fundamentally a moral wrong and should be illegal. Was his argument fair however?
In the opinion of this author, his argument is fair and includes the following strengths: that although torture is prohibited by a number of world declarations, it is so fundamental to international order that it does not need to be embodied in written credos; that simply masking “torture” as other words, does not render it legally justifiable and that by claiming necessity of the lesser of two evils, that torture does not necessarily lead to a betterment in the world; rather a deterioration. Possible pitfalls of his argument include a ignorance of the realist point of view by understanding the political and social needs of the nation at the time the memo was drafted as well as ...
... middle of paper ...
...made acceptable by the guise of euphemisms and the defense of necessity claims that torture was a lesser of two evils, however we know that it does not prevent violence; it only spawns it. This is contrary to the fundamental need for the law; which is to organize threats and create a greater good. In our “civilized society”, torture is morally so distasteful, that we would not own such practices as our own and we have various written documents that state it is not acceptable. However, when we think of Nazi Germany, Vietnam or countries in South America; we snub their military practices as being repugnant, and vile.
The Bybee Memo: Memorandum for Alberta R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President; Office of the Assistant Attorney General, US Department of Justice, August 1, 2002
Gorinson, Stanley M., and Kevin P. Kane. “The Accidental Three Mile Island: The Role of
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
McCraw, David, and Stephen Gikow. “The End to a Unspoken Bargain? National Security and Leaks in a Post-Pentagon Papers World.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 48.2 (2013): 473-509. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...
Alan Dershowitz challenges the legitimization of non-lethal torture in his essay, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be tortured?” He claims that torture should indeed be legitimized for specific scenarios that require such action. The ticking bomb terrorist gives the example of a terrorist withholding time-sensitive information that could result in the death of innocent citizens, if not shared. Not only does Dershowitz challenge the idea of torture, but he also gives a probable solution that favors the legitimization the torture. He mentions three values that would have to be complied with by all three branches of government if it were to be legitimated, which Dershowitz does endorse. The arguments of the two perspectives discussed in the
Smith, Michael. "The Downing Street Memo." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 16 June 2005. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
of torture as necessary and important in order to safeguard the lives of the many innocents
Nedzi (D-Mich.), Luclen N. “Oversight or Overlook: Congress and the US Intelligence Agency.” A Congressman talk to the CIA senior seminar, November 14, 1979, https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol18no2/pdf/v18i2a02p.pdf (accessed January 7, 2014).
America’s Use of Torture in Interrogations of Suspected Terrorists Violates Human Rights by Lisa Hajjar
Torture is the process of inflicting pain upon other people in order to force them to say something against their own will. The word “torture” comes from the Latin word “torquere,” which means to twist. Torture can not only be psychologically but mentally painful. Before the Enlightenment, it was perfectly legal to torture individuals but nowadays, it is illegal to torture anyone under any circumstances. In this essay, I will demonstrate why torture should never acceptable, not matter the condition.
The book’s title, with its dry allusion to the separation of powers, does not do it justice. “Guantánamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power” represents the best account yet of what Mr. Margulies calls “a human rights debacle that will eventually take its place alongside other wartime misadventures, including the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the prosecutions under the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War.”
Wu, E. Y. (2014, April 28). 3 DOMESTIC SPYING AND WHY AMERICA SHOULD AVOID THE SLIPPERY SLOPE. Retrieved from lawweb: http://lawweb.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/rlsj/assets/docs/Wu_Final.pdf
According to Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, a memorandum is meant to protect the writer instead of being issued to inform the reader. I believe that the quote by Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson is not accurate. This statement creates ambiguity because the primary purpose why the writer issues a memorandum is to inform the reader. If the purpose is just to protect the writer and not to inform the reader, just for the sake of issuance, then such memo is of no use. However, this paper seeks to discuss the relevance of both—a memorandum is intended to inform the reader and it is also used to protect the writer.
In conclusion, the convention against torture, has brought many people together, and has informed many people of the horrible tortures which go on everywhere from the US to Syria. It has tried to set fine lines which prohibit torture under all circumstances. However, since there is no governing body over countries, it remains difficult to enforce the human right standards sought after by the Convention against torture. The convention has therefore done a good job at identifying the torturers. This has in turn lessened the amount of those persecuted. It will remain a gradual process to eliminate torture from all countries, but nevertheless a necessity, in the quest for universal human rights. Torture will continue until all countries decide for themselves, and not from a third party convention that freedom from torture is a human right everyone deserves.