Is Torture Good Or Bad

2341 Words 10 Pages
After the infamous September 11, 2001 attacks, the White House made torture its secret weapon in the war on terror. According to renowned history professor Alfred McCoy, Washington chose the CIA as the instrument used to fight against Al Qaeda. Surprisingly, Washington’s quick recourse to torture in the hunt for Al Qaeda replicated the same outcome of anger among the local population and alienation of the American people from the larger war effort first seen during the “dirty” Vietnam war (McCoy). The declaration of war on Al Qaeda, in September 2001, torture had been outsourced to U.S. allies. Following September 2001, an increasing public consensus emerged in favor of torture. George Bush’s administration was secretly sanctioning harsh interrogation …show more content…
affair, torture has always been a global issue. On September 11th, 2001, a much remembered day in America, a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks took place in New York by the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda. During that time, many of the colored race were suspected and tortured without proof. Torture was not legal, however many rules were bent at that time. The Bush Administration says to have not supported torture, however the CIA at the time of 911, and possibly even now, have tortured countless victims. Perhaps the president was not fully aware of the actions at the time in regards of torture or, as some say, he wasn’t informed of it. However, Mr. Bush was not very clear about torture itself. According to the Economist Newspaper, in early 2002, when suspected terrorists were first sent to Guantanamo, Bush told America that the armed forces would treat the detainees “humanely” in a manner “consistent with the Geneva Conventions”-- but only “to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity” (The Economist). The U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay has held terror suspects since January 2002. Early in the war on terror, the Bush administration argued these detainees were "enemy combatants" who didn 't have the protections according to the Prisoners of War (POW) laws under the Geneva Conventions. This means, the terror suspects were allowed to be tortured with no laws specifically protecting them, until …show more content…
However, even if an agent is able to force the helpless victim into uttering some words, all confessions are not truly accurate. Sometimes, the torturer’s only goal is to make the victim confess, not thinking of the accuracy of the information. There is no certain outcome of terror. Torturing someone does not assure a truthful statement. Wikipedia, it 's own publishing organization, discusses how most victims are under so much pain and pressure that the only way their torturer will stop attacking on them is if they start speaking. However, most of these helpless victims are not guilty but have to “give in” to get some relief under such a situation. So how do they get out of being wrongfully tortured? By giving a wrongful answer. Torture only forces victims to produce false information, because those undergoing it will want the pain to stop. Also, being in such a disturbing atmosphere this may impair a person’s ability to speak the truth. (Wikipedia). Giving false information leads to a waste of valuable time and nothing will be gained in torture especially with ruthless torturers. These torturers want to hear anything and will accept it as the truth and that they have gained knowledge, not knowing the real situation. Along with false confessions being produced, false arrests are also being made. 30 months following 911, authorities relied on intelligence (a.k.a. torture) and arrested 5,000 terror

Related Documents