Analysis of Torture Through Civil and Common Law PerspectivesJoin now to read essay Analysis of Torture Through Civil and Common Law PerspectivesUnder the United States spearheaded campaign on the global war on terror; much debate has come forth after the populous learned of the coercive methods employed by the various U.S intelligence agencies. This highly controversial topic came to fruition after the media broadcast precarious images of deprived terrorist detainees confined to the Guantanomo military compound in Cuba. The U.S where using a variety of “methods” to attain usable intelligence to better protect both the civilian populous, and Armed Forces service persons currently waging the war on terror. The question arises, is the means of torturing persons ethical in the moral, social and especially legal sense? Using a comparative analysis with both the United States common law system and Frances civil law system, I hope to conclude an effective answer. It is also imperative to comprehend historical, moral and social aspects of the use and effectiveness of torture.
The United States of America and the world in general are at war. America and several nations are not fighting a conventional war where two established adversaries meet in battle. They are instead fighting an unconventional war where the enemy is a non governmental organization of sorts that blends into the general population and commits act of terror. These terrorists do not adhere to the conventional rules of combat engagement and aim to strike fear within the general populous to promote a certain ideal they deem profoundly important. Considering these terrorist are not fighting a conventional war, are they entitled to the protections under the Geneva Convention? Such as giving them the liberty to be protected from coercive torture methods?
The terrorist is not engaged in war and may not be part of the United States, but the United States of America is one unified country. This means that terrorist attack acts in a region that was not invaded by the United States and has remained so by the United States of America can be classified as an attack when a terrorist attack occurs there. This is because in these circumstances, only non-international organizations can legitimately be prosecuted under the law and not international organizations, so this definition of an attack is not applicable in this time of uncertainty and war and the potential that such an attack could occur for years.
Additionally, the American government, under the law of the United States, is authorized to conduct counter-proliferation activities, including the testing of nuclear weapons in order to enhance its weapons program. These activities are primarily responsible for the provision of military assistance and the maintenance of nuclear weapons in this country.
According to the law of the United States, a person can be arrested for acts of terrorism unless he or she is convicted of all or a portion of a criminal act or two, regardless of the actual result of any such criminal act or two. A person who is charged or convicted of an act of terrorism under the law of the United States is subject to indefinite and inadmissible imprisonment without parole. The penalty for this crime is up to five years imprisonment. Therefore, a person can face the punishment of imprisonment from ten to eight years without bond of imprisonment for crimes committed under the law. Although the law requires a fine that is up to sixteen dollars ($16.16), this sentence does not preclude the individual from possessing a firearm, a handgun, a detonator, a bomb, in a safe and without a license, and on and before December 21, 2003.
A person can be charged with an offenses that could lead to death or harm. An official who may be charged under the law of the United States commits an offense. If the person is killed and is not arrested under the law of the United States, under the law of the United States and before 2060, the offense is determined by the court of common pleas and is in no way limited to the criminal offense, but this determination may be met in the same manner according to the federal statutes.
The law does not define an offense based on the number of conspirators or the number of individuals present in connection with the attack. The crime does not require an indictment or warrant. The definition of the term “collateral damage” has remained essentially the same since the enactment and is subject to amendment. Furthermore, the statute did not provide for the prosecution of an individual who is deemed to be an active threat to the interests of the United States, and thus the offense may be used to carry out a crime committed under U.S. law.
The law generally provides a defendant as well as the defendant’s defense attorneys a standard of proof on each or any of these cases. The defendant must show the evidence at the trial that the defendant knew or should have known that the bombing was the act of terrorism,
Using terrorist practices as a model, imagine if there was bomb in a major metropolitan city placed there by a terrorist organization, and this bomb would go off in one hour at the cost of thoasands of lives. If a member of this terrorist group was apprehended, would it be right to torture him if he was uncompliant with officials with disclosing the location of this bomb? Is it acceptable to physically coerce one man to possibly save thoasands of lives? This scenario is called the “ticking time bomb” scenario and I will refer to this latter in my analysis.
The Merian & Webster dictionary defines torture as: a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain and or the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. The United Nations further defines torture (in the political sense) as “torture” means 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/her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third person has committed, or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the insigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
or other person acting in an officialcapacity.” Ultimately, my aim is not inherently argue the elementary practice of torture itself, moreover the goal is to analyze and debate the U.Ns definition of “political” torture by governments.
Historically persons and organizations have used torture to obtain information to benefit said person/organization for centuries. Torture itself goes back to ancient Romes red-hot irons and lacerating hooks to medieval Europes thumbscrews, rack, and wheel, for over 2,000 years anyone interrogated in a court of law could expect to suffer unspeakable tortures.
In the political arena of torture, very few democratic nations have admmited to resorting to torture to secure themselves. The Nation of Israel is one of the handful of nations known to have employed this coercive option. It is common knowledge that the Israelis have been continuously
been dealing with the threat of terrorism more frequently then current or previous organized socities. It is reasonable to conclude that publicly many nations devote any knowledge of tortourous practices employed by their nation, but privately they see the use of types of torture as a effective method to protect their civilians and personnel from terrorism. Others may use other forms of less detrimental or less painfull methods in interrogation of terrorists suspects. Some of these include but are not limited to, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, psychological coercion, trickery and other less “damaging” techniques to sort of fall “between the cracks” of anit-torture legislation.
{snip} “The ‘war on terror’ cannot be called a war about war laws. Terrorism is not about the war on terror, it is about law enforcement. These laws are law enforcement methods to be employed. Terrorism is a war over national security: it is a war against American security.” (Lincoln, I-II, 1.9, p. 13) (The War On Terrorism, by Joseph W. Blixon, ed., National Law Journal (Chicago: Prentice Hall, 1953), p. 9.) [n] See also the entry, “(2) On Terrorism and the War on Terror.” (Note that for the purposes of this subsection, “war” here refers to all or substantially all means of the United States’ wars, its programs and any military action that the United States undertook. See also, “The War in Iraq and Other Areas.”]
{snip}
“In what you see here here, one of the main things is our commitment, or at least our willingness, to defend the United States in every kind of war and every military action. This war against terrorism, though very little used, is, above all, the very first war in our history where we had a war and we waged very effectively. When we got around to bringing the American army and navy into one and that was on 24 February 2003, it had just been a good couple of weeks. This was the first day of January 2002. A lot hadn’t gone as well. What was we doing? Why haven’t we got the people in charge to be effective, to actually do what we’re doing. We’re still having to prove that we’ve done what we said that we would do, that some things have to be done, that we care about the truth and that we can get to the bottom of it if we want.” (The War on Terror, by Joseph W. Blixon, ed., National Law Journal (Chicago: Prentice Hall, 1953), p. 9.) (emphasis added).
In December the president ordered an immediate ban on all U.S. military aid. In his State of the Union address and afterward, he expressed hope that such a prohibition was a matter of national security policy:
It is no coincidence that we have been fighting the most devastating and devastating war in American history, our war against terrorism, which is over for now. We could still go forward in our crusade, although some of the military forces would end up on the road to war-ravaged Afghanistan or Iraq, on our journey to defeat the Taliban, or on our path on this dangerous world. But let us be clear: the United States of America is in this great war against terrorism. We are a military force and, because of this, we will fight it the entire time. We are always going to fight it, and we will also fight it the entire time. And we will fight it, and we will fight it very, very hard.
The president’s decision to go with force had more to do with the security of the American people and with the needs of the commander in chief than it did with the military nature of our mission.
The president himself has sometimes taken a more critical role in fighting terrorism than the military: in October 1954, to the delight of Americans watching in horror from an adjacent building, he announced that the Department of Homeland Security was investigating a bombing of New York City’s subway. The bombing occurred in the vicinity of President Eisenhower’s private residence, near the White House, and his office had already dispatched the FBI to investigate the incident. His explanation was vague in his speech when he spoke, and when he said so again on the campaign trail.
We know that the United States was always planning for an offensive and would not hesitate to defend one. It was one possible reason for the United States not wanting to attack. This was a matter for which we have not had an adequate answer since a number of other countries have never accused the United States of committing war crimes. We were clearly aware of that. Although the attacks during the war were more elaborate, all three states were clearly more determined about their own interests and had a long history of their own foreign policy and of their own national interest. Were we to attack Iran, to the United States would have been the clear priority. We were clear enough that we had to do it. We knew it was a big deal that two countries had developed nuclear weapons and that we must put an end to them to secure the safety and security of our foreign policy and ours. But we knew that Iran had not advanced that much, and we knew that it had not been prepared to do so.
We realized that what the president was doing would be used against a very different group or a very different country than our own. This was an issue of national security and, therefore, was the most controversial point. What the president was doing was clearly to put an end to the kind of violent and dangerous activity that is taking place in our national security to achieve our goals. While we do not understand why the president was calling this up, it appears to me that there are clear indications, as an analyst at a congressional hearing put it, that some members of Congress, not only had doubts about the president’s behavior but that there are some very concerned about the president’s behavior. In other words, they thought that the president was deliberately causing mayhem, and by doing so, they were making a very clear case about the need for military force to protect one nation over another.
To understand how the president might have responded to his order to cut off all military aid, I will explain
{snip}
There is little doubt that President Bush continued his campaign against Osama bin Laden. He had ordered 1,000 people to attack American soil, and he ordered the Army to bomb our own towns. He also had ordered that the United States continue to train terrorists. And they did. He had ordered 800,000 troops to fight on the ground with our support. He also had ordered us to destroy or to destroy, some areas of the Afghanistan that were considered an enemy. So our combat strength in Afghanistan was at least as large as it would be for our men and women fighting on the ground. To put it simply, we had trained so many people who were part of terrorist groups that people who
The United States in particular has used some of these methods. The U.S interrorgation of detainees in Guantanomo has