While just about everyone can agree that torture is morally reprehensible, the question arises as to whether or not there is justified use of torture, and if so, how to institute rules and regulations for its permissible use. With the war on terror, America 's use of torture and "advanced interrogation techniques" has become a prominent issue both in domestic and international forums, and a heated debate has ensued as to whether or not torture is justified as a tool in counter-terrorism efforts. The changing nature of conflict seen in the war on terror and the ambiguity associated with it has led some to turn a blind eye to, or even encourage the use of torture as a counter-terrorism tool. However, despite the nebulous nature of the terrorist
…show more content…
The United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture as "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 information, a confession, punishment for a crime he committed or is suspected of having committed, intimidation or coercion, or based on discrimination..." (United Nations 1984) Inflicting such extreme physical or mental pain, either through torture or other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, is an unconscionable violation of a person 's rights, as agreed to by the 157 nations (including the United States) that have ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, and as laid out by our very own 8th Amendment prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment. While there is debate over to what extent the Bill of Rights applies to non-US citizens, the fact that we included it in our list of inalienable rights guaranteed to citizens proves that it is something that we see as a universal …show more content…
The terrorist prisoner is inherently an unlawful actor, one that violates the conventions of war and targets civilians. In "The Truth About Torture," Krauthammer argues that in doing so, the terrorist prisoner has surrendered his rights through his own actions, and has opened himself up to justified use of torture (Krauthammer 2005). While such a prisoner is indeed entitled to far fewer rights than a standard POW, and has opened himself to more lawful forms of punishment, the use of such an extreme and inhumane tactic as torture goes beyond the bounds of acceptable treatment of a
The United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture as "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 information, a confession, punishment for a crime he committed or is suspected of having committed, intimidation or coercion, or based on discrimination..." (United Nations 1984) Inflicting such extreme physical or mental pain, either through torture or other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, is an unconscionable violation of a person 's rights, as agreed to by the 157 nations (including the United States) that have ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, and as laid out by our very own 8th Amendment prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment. While there is debate over to what extent the Bill of Rights applies to non-US citizens, the fact that we included it in our list of inalienable rights guaranteed to citizens proves that it is something that we see as a universal …show more content…
The terrorist prisoner is inherently an unlawful actor, one that violates the conventions of war and targets civilians. In "The Truth About Torture," Krauthammer argues that in doing so, the terrorist prisoner has surrendered his rights through his own actions, and has opened himself up to justified use of torture (Krauthammer 2005). While such a prisoner is indeed entitled to far fewer rights than a standard POW, and has opened himself to more lawful forms of punishment, the use of such an extreme and inhumane tactic as torture goes beyond the bounds of acceptable treatment of a