Terrorism has been affecting the world for many years, but most especially since September 11th. Countless amounts of time and money have been spent; many soldiers and American resources have gone out try to stop the problem, but what happens to the terrorists after they have been captured? A basic level of humane treatment needs to be given to all people even those suspected of or convicted of terroristic offences. Using torture to attempt to find more information is not the most helpful or effective method that could be applied. Although the War on Terrorism is different than any war seen before in history, it is still a war against the United States government and the Geneva Convention needs to protect these war criminals. Those suspected of, or convicted of, terroristic offences should receive the same protections under the Geneva Convention that apply to prisoners of war because they are prisoners of war and their basic human rights need to be respected, torture has been proven to be rarely effective, and their roles, as terrorists, fit into the Geneva Convention criterion. A terrorist is someone who uses deliberate violent tactics to attack those who they see to be their enemy, mainly official government like organizations. Terrorists all share many characteristics which include, committing violent attacks, creating an atmosphere of fear, wanting publicity and not wanted to conquer, just harm their enemy (Taylor [Page 11]). Two of the most renowned terroristic organizations are the Taliban and al Qaeda. When a terrorist is captured there are two different routes they can take. The first being, taken into civilian courts and being tried in the United States court systems. But leaves them in a “legal limbo” for some time bet... ... middle of paper ... ...nees. International Committee of the Red Cross, 29 Oct. 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. . Richardson, Neal A., and Spencer J. Crona. "Terrorists Should Be Tried in a Military Tribunal." Criminal Justice. Ed. Jill Karson. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Shapiro, Bruce. "Detainees in the War on Terror Should Be Treated as Prisoners of War." War. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Taylor, Robert. History of Terrorism. San Diego: Lucent, 2002. Print. Winn, Aidan Kirby. "Can Gitmo's terrorists be rehabilitated?" Christian Science Monitor 29 June 2009: 9. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
In her essay Can U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants, Jennifer Vanklausen explores the ethical question of our government’s policy to hold American citizens suspected of terrorist activity against the United States as enemy combatants, withholding their constitutional rights as provided in the fifth and sixth amendments, during an undeclared war.
America’s Use of Torture in Interrogations of Suspected Terrorists Violates Human Rights by Lisa Hajjar
2. What is the constitutional process, if any, that is afforded to those citizens who are accused of being an “enemy combatant”, and whom wish to challenge the government’s assertion?
In the book titled Bad Men: Guantanamo Bay and the Secret Prison the author C.S. Smith argued that the Bush administration targeted prisoners of war from Iraq, Iran, an...
Welch, M. (2010). Illusions in truth seeking: the perils of interrogation and torture in the war on terror. Social Justice, 37(2/3), 123-148. Retrieved from http://www.socialjusticejournal.org/fliers/37-2-3flier.html
In an op-ed piece for the New York Times, entitled "George W. to George W.," Thomas Friedman writes about the treatment of prisoners in United States custody being held in Iraq and Afghanistan. Friedman writes in his "George W." piece that “We killed 26 of our prisoners of war. In 18 cases, people have been recommended for prosecution or action by their supervising agencies, and eight other cases are still under investigation.”
Kash, Douglas A. “An International Legislative Approach to 21st-Century Terrorism.” The Future of Terrorism: Violence in the New Millennium. Ed. Harvey W. Kushner. London: Sage Publications, 1998.
ICRC. (2014, April 4th). The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Retrieved from International Committee of the Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf
The issue of torture is nothing new. It was done in the past and it’s done now in the 21st century. Without saying one side is right and the other side is wrong, let us discuss the part that we agree on and find common ground. We as Americans want to protect Americans from harms. So how do we prevent that from happening without torturing? It is impossible to get answer without some sort of questioning and intimidation techniques, since we know captured prisoners during war are not easily going to give up information. We know the enemy we face doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention or any law that pertains to war, so does that mean we shouldn’t also follow the Geneva Convention also, which prohibits torture? Of course not, because we want to be example for the world. Republicans argue that we have to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe, and Democrats argue it goes against our values and makes us look bad. We as Americans, as leader of the free world we
Is the intentional pain that an individual experiences justified if there is the potential to save the lives of many? Torture is the most used weapon in the “war against terrorism” but does it work? The purpose of this essay is to identify what the motives for torturing are, the effectiveness of torture, and important issues with the whole process of torture.
Torture may be an inhumane way to get the information needed to keep the citizens of the United States safe from the attacks that are threatened against them, but there is rarely a course of action that will ensure the safety of a nation’s citizens that doesn’t compromise the safety of another group of people. Nevertheless, we must conserve as much humanity as possible by looking at the situation we are in and ensure that we are approaching the torture in an ethical manner. Although torture is valid on moral grounds, there are many who oppose it, such as Jamie Mayerfeld as he states in his 2009 article “In Defense of the Absolute Prohibition of Torture”.
Finding a proper, well-accepted definition of what constitutes terror is extremely difficult. There are many challenges that confront scholars, experts, and everyday people when it comes to defining terrorism and terrorists. Differing backgrounds and cultures of those defining terror in addition to differing histories are just one of the many challenges facing those that wish to define terror. Furthermore, labeling a group or an individual as a terrorist could be considered offensive, especially in today’s politically correct environment, potentially damaging those in the political arena. However, on the flip side, labeling someone as a terrorist can also serve a political purpose as in the case of being propaganda towards a war effort, or to help define an enemy. Nevertheless, the main problem with not being able to have a widely accepted definition of terrorism is that “It is impossible to formulate or enforce international agreements against terrorism” (Ganor, 300).
"Terrorism and Civil Liberty: Is Torture Ever Justified? | The Economist." The Economist - World
After the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, terrorism has come to the forefront of the American picture. Levin published his essay in 1982, at a time when terrorism was something that was feared, but not at the intense level that it is currently. One of the main reasons Levin advocates for torture is that thinks that it will help, “...for preventing future evils” (689). Before terrorism was rampant in the world, this idea may have held some merit. If, after smaller attacks, terrorists were tortured, they may have given away information that would have been viable for preventing future, more detrimental attacks. Nowadays torturing a terrorist may have more consequences than benefits. Attacks nowadays are set up by large, intricate, dangerous groups of terrorists. So, if a member of one of these terrorist groups was tortured, that may make the groups want to retaliate even more strongly. Essentially, torturing a terrorist may perpetuate more hatred for the target country. Another point Levin makes is that, “The name of their [the terrorists] game is public recognition” (690). He explains how one of the main motives behind terrorism is being as infamous as possible by, for example, being on every news broadcast or newspaper. The idea of public recognition being a motivation for terrorism is something that did make sense in 1982, but in today’s technologically advance world, this feat is less than a goal and almost a guarantee. With the rise of social media, getting publicly recognized is not something very difficult to do. News spreads like wildfire; so if a terrorist has plans to do anything remotely damaging, and is able to carry it out, it will most likely garner some media attention. Although some of Levin’s points had credibility during the time when his essay was published, they are not contemporary enough to be applicable to
A web site called the ABC federation, which supports political prisoners as a totally autonomous unified group, which looks to grow collectively on struggles against government policies. They informed me that Political Prisoners act to carry out support of legitimate struggles for self-determination or for opposing the illegal policies for the government along with its political sub-divisions. In the Common Dreams New Center web site reported a study on what a terrorist was. It explains to me that a terrorist is one who acts or engages in an act of terrorism.