Torture in Military Ethics - Coursework Example

Torture in Military Ethics Introduction Torture, before the onset of the twenty-first century remained a vice universally opposed by the globe, being termed as unnecessary and inhumane. However, one of the world’s most brutal acts of terrorism targeting American soil in 2001 saw this universal unity decompose, resulting in America’s defense undergoing adverse transformations with regard to war. Ever since, the conduct of the United States military has always been in the limelight over claims of using torture to force information out of its victims to gain intelligence mileage. Guantanamo bay is famous for such accusations, in addition to many other military detentions bases. These occurrences therefore lead to the controversial debate regarding military ethics and the use of torture during the war, plus what perspective the world holds towards it, as this essay will discuss. An overall definition of torture defines it as a deliberate act of inflicting psychological or physical suffering, mostly through pain to a being (animal or person) that is under full control of the inflictor, with no means of defense. This act exists from times in memorial, in most cases applying as a tool for revenge, interrogation, punishment, or deterrence, and has durations that vary from minutes to months or even years on end. Torture is currently under prohibition by international laws since it is regarded as being against human rights, and is rather unacceptable. In addition to this, individual countries exercise domestic laws to prohibit the act. There exist several international laws banning the vice. Key amongst them is the Geneva Conventions treaties and protocols of 1949 that were put in place following the devastating occurrences of the Second World War. They outline the rights of wartime prisoners, protection rights for the wounded, and define protection protocols for civilians during war. A second human rights instrument is the United Nations Convention against Torture, which prevents torture, inhumane punishment, cruelty, and all other forms of treatment that degrade humanity. These were put in place in 1984, and are commemorated annually on 26 June as the ‘International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.’ (“United Nations”, 2012). Clive (2013) writes about the earliest open displays of torture. He reveals that as early as the 1640’s during the English Civil War, one Clarendon established a political prison on the British shoreline where those termed as enemies of parliament were “buried together with their rights”. This was, however revoked in 1679 by the establishment of an Act titled the Habeas Corpus that banned the denial of justice to any prisoners. The same applies to the Guy Fawkes case where after his plan of blowing up Parliament failed, he was tortured into naming his co-conspirators, and later faced execution through burning. These cases went on to be incorporated in military practice and were put to full use during world-famous conflicts such as World War II where human rights were totally overlooked as people were brutally tortured through mass killings, starvation, gassing, brutal beating, to mention but a few. The aftermaths of such led to formation of bodies to prevent further occurrences of the same, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions of post WW2, and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, still following the same period. The Just War Theory is similar to the Jus In Bello theorem in that both seek to address the taking of human lives, defending, and protecting them. They both agree that in observing the above, it might at times require the application of violence and/or force, but it has to be strategically done so it does not harm innocent lives (“Just War”, 2014). Jus in Bello, or International Law for Humanity provides guidelines for conducting necessary war by giving limits that warfare should not exceed. It only comes into play when a war has begun, and its mandate is to critique the style of war, and the reasons for it as well. Concisely, it limits human tribulations resulting from war, and further assists and protects the victims. From both perspectives, the two theories do not in any way support torture as ethical, but rather point it out as a humanitarian concern. They allow war, true, but war and torture are different in that in war, both parties are willing and able to defend themselves while in torture, the victim is helpless. Accusations of America using torture in forcing information out of suspects rose sharply after the events of the 9/11 attacks. This is partially because America “took its battles to the enemies’ backyard” in pursuit of those responsible, and potentially terrorist heads. Lawson (2008) brings to light some of the accusations leveled against this superpower where he defines it as having become the judge, jury, and executioner after 9/11. The war that began in Afghanistan was reported to have included intensive torture of the natives and prisoners, most of who ended up dead while in the US army’s custody. In a separate report by The New York Times, evidence has it that US Special Forces held about seventeen Afghan detainees on terrorism grounds, and later allowed them to be tortured, where after the forces left, all the seventeen were found dead. The identified torturer cum killer is one Mr. Kandahari, an interpreter working with the forces, is said to have killed the seventeen and was later assisted to escape by the US army (Nordland, 2013). In the detention camps such as Guantanamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison, some of those released from the facilities confessed to having undergone severe torture that included starvation, waterboarding, harsh living conditions, deprived of sleep, beatings, and subjected to electric shock. Whereas America denied all these claims, medical examinations on the patients proved that indeed, they had been tortured (Lawson, 2008). While this debate continues, there exist several reasons offered as to why torture is necessary in some military operations. For instance, there are claims that torture is not a mode of punishment, but rather, it is interrogative. What this tries to imply is that ethically, it is similar to other processes involved in pre-trial such as questioning, shackling, or detention. As such, it should not lead to passing a verdict, but provide evidence that will aid in finding out the truth. The proposers of the act further add that contradicting a suspect through a mild method of interrogation assists in avoiding wrong information. A second reason for condoning torture is explained in the “ticking bomb” problem where a suspect has to undergo some form of torture for them to give information that is crucial in cases where there is almost sufficient evidence that he/she is directly involved in a malicious scheme. This might apply in cases such as when a member of a gang is arrested and has to be forced to give information concerning their objectives or other crucial information (Vaknin, n.d.). In short, torture can be used to detect and prevent excess damage or fatalities. On the contrary, there are opposers of military use of torture who argue that not until one is found guilty upon presentation of sufficient evidence, then they remain innocent and no form of punishment should be exercised on them. To them, torture is any act that inflicts pain or suffering either physically or psychologically, thus the definition of it as a means of interrogation is wrong and misleading. On another note, the verdict applied can be biased or inaccurate, meaning that some of those destined to face torture are usually innocent and not deserving of the act. This is true in that there exists no accurate means of determining one’s wrongdoing. In addition, the confessions given by torture victims might not be necessarily true since the suffering encountered might push one to confess in order to save them the pain. Amidst all its claims of using torture in its military, the United States remains a leading advocate against the practice. It has been holding onto certain policies that define guidelines on the conduct concerning it. Key amongst these is the Bill of Rights that falls under the section of unusual and cruel punishment. The bill states that in the trial process, excessive bailing, cruelty, excessive fines, and unusual punishments are not to be used. Secondly, there is the domestic legislation that focuses on crimes of torture committed beyond its borders by any of its citizens. It states that such an act is punishable by law, and defines torture as the infliction of severe pain on a person in custody, and that threatening of death amounts to torture as well. In addition to these two, the US military came up with manuals to guide in the process of collecting intelligence referred to as 2006 Military Field Manuals. They affirm that anybody, from any nationality, while in the custody of the DOD, shall not be subjected to any act termed as torture or inhuman, and anyone who breaches it risks facing legal action. The manuals prohibit amongst other things; stripping detainees, harassing them sexually, hooding them, subjecting them to any form of physical pain, waterboarding, using military dogs, and starving detainees (“US Joint Service Manuals”, 2013). Morally, the use of torture is overly wrong and should never apply in any case irrespective of the conditions. The reason is that torture causes suffering to the victim, wherein such an act is immoral, whether one is guilty of wrongdoing or not. As human beings, nature expects us to fit ourselves into the shoes of others and evaluate what it feels like to be in their positions. Concisely, if one has humanity in them, they should not possess the heart to cause extremes of pain to others. However, from a legal perspective, it happens that sometimes, it is the only way to get things done. The ticking bomb concept in the picture, one would argue that if taking one life saves hundreds more, then it has to occur sometimes to save rather controversial scenarios. In translation to real life, and specifically terror, it is not practical for a superpowers watch as malicious organizations terrorize other states, or invade them. This calls for rethinking the decisions that America takes when it goes after terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda. Whereas scores of innocent civilians die, it makes sense that more targets (terrorists) are eliminated and that saves the entire globe terrorist activities in future. Conclusion In conclusion, it is important to define what most international rights watch instruments such as the Geneva Conventions or United or the United Nations Convention against Torture consider as protected from invasion or subjected to military action. What these bodies advocate for being states that have definite boundaries, legal systems, and laws. This, therefore, answer the query as to whether non-state actors such as terrorists deserve the cover as well. The answer in a sane opinion would be an obvious, absolute no, reasons being too open. Terror groups are notorious for violating human rights and interfere with normal living, as such, deserve any measurable action in wiping them out. This should be a consideration when it comes to identifying who to target and who to spare since military reaction to such groups is, and will always remain necessary. References “Just War”. (2014). BBC.co.uk. Retrieved on February 15, 2014 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/introduction.shtml Lawson, H. (2008). Tom of Twofold Bay. Australia: Meni Pub. and Binding. Nordland, R. (2013, July 7). Interpreter Accused of Torturing and Killing Afghan Civilians Is Arrested. The New York Times. Retrieved on February 15, 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/world/asia/suspect-in-torture-is-arrested-in-afghanistan.html?_r=1& “US Joint Services Manuals”. (2013, August 2). StevesPages.com. Retrieved on February 15, 2014 from http://www.stevespages.com/page7c.htm “United Nations Human Rights,” (2012). Retrieved on February 15, 2014 from http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cat/pages/catindex.aspx Smith, C. (2013, December 18). A History of Torture. Retrieved on February 15, 2014 from http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/12/history-torture-201312177521103436.html Vaknin, S. The Argument for Torture. Retrieved on February 15, 2014 from http://samvak.tripod.com/torture.html Read More