The Justice and Efficacy of Torture

     The Administration is struggling with the issue of justice, morality and efficacy in its treatment of terrorist suspects and their supporters.  There are no easy answers.  If I am put to the test of a choice between using harsh, even prohibited interrogation techniques or to stand by and watch a thousand innocents among our fellow citizens slaughtered, I would not choose to stand by.  That is the choice that we are told is at stake.  And those of us who are concerned about our own standards and the efficacy of torture when we engage in practices that we used to abhor in others, are accused of appeasement.

     To accept the Administration’s approach is to accept its concept of unilateralism, exceptionalism, and the right of America to engage in preemptive defense against terrorists. We do not have to uphold the standards we expect others to uphold because we are a benevolent global hegemon.  Our motives are pure and our actions are for the good of the whole.  But this attitude presumes that others view us in the same way and are willing to accept America’s leadership and exceptionalism.  And if they are not, we have the power to impose on them.

     Unfortunately, America’s stock has never been lower in the world and others do not see us a benevolent but as having aspirations of empire.  Up to now the Administration seemed to believe that we were the only player on the board when it came to fighting terrorism.  Yet, what we have seen over the past five years has been a growing recognition that terrorism is a global problem and a global issue.  It is not a uniquely American issue, it is not uniquely an al Qaeda issue and it cannot be solved by America alone. 

     Apparently, a significant skirmish took place in the White House over the disposition of the CIA’s secret prisoners and its interrogation techniques between the supporters of the Vice President and the supporters of the Secretary of Sate.  In the end the President appeared to come down publicly and rhetorically on the side of the Secretary of State.  But, as is so often the case with this White House, the Vice President may have won the battle.  The White House has made clear that the CIA interrogation centers will stay open and it has put forward legislation that would enshrine the right of the CIA to engage in interrogation techniques that many would consider to be torture and contrary to the Geneva Conventions. 

     There is no question but that the Geneva Conventions were not drafted with the war on terror in mind.  There is an assumption in the Conventions that both sides of the conflict would be bound by the restrictions and that those who violated their provisions would be brought to the dock.  Al Qaeda and its ilk are not bound to any human moral standard and Geneva does not deal with that problem.  And Geneva, having been drafted to apply to conventional warfare, does not deal with non-state actors or their unconventional methods.  The Administration has a point.  And frankly, I don’t care if terrorists are subjected to extreme stress and non-lethal pressure. They have chosen their path and it is outside the path of global norms. In the mid 90’s, as an Ambassador in Egypt, I helped establish the practice of rendition, i.e. seizing suspects off of foreign soil and turning them over to receptive countries whose standards and practices permit far more aggressive interrogation than even the CIA permits. I have no regrets about this effort.  Some bad people were taken off the streets who otherwise may have spawned further terrorist acts. 

     Nevertheless, like it or not, the rest of the world including, in particular, the Arab and Islamic worlds clearly have a stake in this issue.  It is their support and joint leadership that has been and will be critical if we are to win this war on terror. It is they, not we, who can attack the theological roots of the radical Islamist phenomena and deligitimize the terrorists call for Jihad.  So it is not in our interests if, by our assertion of unilateral interpretations of global norms, we alienate the rest of the world from that essential cooperation.  Already we face significant difficulties in extraditing certain criminals from some European and other states because we have a death penalty and they don’t.  Will countries willingly hand over their citizens for interrogation or cooperate in our efforts to capture terror suspects if we have a standard of treatment that they reject?  Some will, but others will not.

     Clearly the Administration has been rethinking the problem. But, given the reaction in Congress, including from some prominent Republicans, they apparently have more rethinking to do.  Without being soft on terrorism it seems to me that we could put some safeguards into our system at home so that we do not put the burden of decision solely on the shoulders of our CIA station chiefs and Ambassadors or in the NSC to decide what can and cannot be done.  Congressional and judicial oversight is important in this regard.  There are surely ways to insure prompt and effective decision making if the Administration is prepared to concede that the other branches of our government have a legitimate say in how we define our moral and judicial standards.  And as far as the Geneva Conventions go, perhaps it is time for the international community to review these standards in the light of the asymmetrical warfare with terror that has evolved in the world.      

Technorati Tags: al Qaeda , Geneva Conventions, Middle East, Torture

Comments

[Jared Leslie]

The article has many good points and confronts the issue of terrorism on many key issues. It is my opinion that the Geneva convention is old and outdated, because of this states are being hampered in their pursuit of militant criminals that should not be protected under the Geneva convention. It is necessary that countries retain their stance on torture but it must be done with the consideration of the possible consequences. We no longer live in a world where state vs. state conflict is likely.

[Raymond DeMartino]

The United States government needs to create some sort of acceptable form of terrorist interrogation that is regarded as moral, just, and effective throughout the international community. If other countries see that the United States government is making an effort to reform their policy on the treatment of terrorist suspects, it may give the United States more support internationally for the war on terror. The Bush administration has been slammed by critics for being unilateral and stubborn in their ideas. One step in the right direction for turning this criticism around is to outline acceptable forms of terrorist interrogation so that foriegn countries with suspected terrorist living inside their borders will be more likely to turn over the suspects to the United States. I agree with Amb. Walker that having a foot in the door with countries in the Arab world is vital to winning the war on terror. Torturing citizens of these Arab countries in secret prison camps is not the way to get that foot in the door.

[Mitch O'Connor]

The issue of torture is quite complex. An examination of the issue on philosophical grounds reveals major differences between the consequentialist and deontological schools of thought. A consequentialist may decide that torture is acceptable, as one person's suffering will prevent the suffering of a great many more people. However, this approach is contradictory to many American ideals. America espouses individual autonomy, due process and the rule of law. Torture is clearly at odds with these ideals. In fact, a consequentialist may even see torture as wrong if the harm to America's image outweighs the benefits of torture. This is a major argument against torture, as it alienates countries who may oppose terrorism and may even cause them to support terrorists.

[Carey Ruckert]

I agree with Professor Walker that the United States needs as much support as we can get in the war on terror. Terrorism has no boundaries and can not be confined to individual states. The CIA relies on foreign intelligence in fighting terrorism and if countries resist cooperating in response to our interrogation processes, the United States can not win the war on terror. Cooperation is critical, especially as nations continue to move closer economically and father apart politically.
In addition to foreign states, The American people have also objected to the interrogation process. With less than 50% of the population in support of the war in Iraq, Bush may do well in reconsidering our approach to extraditing information.

[Julianne Jaquith]

About the United States, Ambassador Walker writes, "We do not have to uphold the standards we expect others to uphold because we are a benevolent global hegemon."
I think this statement has a lot of validity with regard to our current policies. In a country where we promote "liberty and justice for all", there is a gap between the values we preach and the values we practice. A majority of Americans support being harsh on terrorists and terrorism; however, our morality of habit in the United States says that torture is an unacceptable practice. In addition, our Constitution states that no “cruel and unusual punishments” should be inflicted upon criminals. By law, even the most brutal criminals in the United States receive a fair trial. How do we deal with these non-state actors? While torturing those that have harmed us may be cathartic and tough on the terrorists, it completely contradicts all that we stand for in this country as well as the values we are trying to promote elsewhere. Although we think we do not have to comply with the moral and judicial standards to which we subject other actors, we are not going to gain any credibility in the international community by torturing the terrorists.

[Kelsey Richardson]

Today’s administration has boiled down the war on terror to a kind of black and white scenario that doesn’t exist. We categorize terrorism as a kill or be killed situation. With this attitude, it has been easy for us to adopt the ‘ any means necessary’ policy we have in place today. This attitude, however, has become controversial in its translation to interrogation procedures. Today, CIA secret prisons across the globe are interrogating terrorist suspects without standards or restrictions all in the name of national security. Our administration maintains that this is entirely justified. After all, as Ambassador Walker mentions, who cares about the welfare of terrorist prisoners when we are removing these bad men and their threats from the world, right? Wrong. Though individually we Americans may not care about the welfare and rights of terrorists in prison, it is our nations job to care about the welfare and credibility of our national procedures. What kind of international leader are we if we crack down on terrorism with the same kind of reprehensible behavior as our enemy?
Furthermore, President Bush has been quoted on many occasions referring to our war on terror as a kind of moral war. He believes the US to be a model of justice, democracy and goodness and accuses terrorism of being hateful and evil in its very nature. In this way, it is even more important that the United States reconsider its current interrogation procedures and secret policies. If our administration insists on pegging this war against terrorism as a morally charged one then we, as a nation, must maintain our own legal and moral codes. This means staying true to our democracy and its balance of power and honoring our laws and agreements. After all, every abandonment of our western laws and morals counts as a win for terrorism.

[Will Schick]

In my view, the interrogation of suspected terrorists is crucial to winning the war on terrorism. Frankly I don't care whether or not interrogated terrorists are unfairly treated or whether the methods we apply are legal or not. The United States must be tough on terrorism and send a clear message to all terrorists in the world---that we do not tolerate terrorism. However, Professor Walker does bring up an important point on this---In order to be more successful in winning the war on terror we need the cooperation of our European and Arab allies. As to how the United States should go about gaining their support, I am not sure.

[Bevin Kenny]

The first mistake the US made was to go into war without the support of the international community. As a result, other countries began to percieve us as empirialistic. The US was confident that we would succeed, overcome these forces of evil, and bring freedom to the world. But we didn't take into account the many other countries effected by terrorism and the unclear enemy that lies within a gray area. Those two factors make it difficult for the US to target a specific state of terrorist groups. Over the past couple of years we have realized that there are more countries, more circles of terror, that have spread out and have started to blend with the rest of the world. Not having the support of other countries has hindered the US from really making any gournd on this war. Once we stop and focus on our relations with the rest of the world we will be able to come together and make a final consensus on how to handle this growing problem of terrorism. "United we stand, divided we fall."

[Michael Daley]

There is a clear division between what is lawful interrogation, and illegal torture. We have laws in place that outline this division, but the line between what the administration is willing to accept as legal and illegal practices by CIA officials is becoming increasingly blurred. The claims of torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were by no means the first time the CIA has been accused of using brutal tactics in dealing with prisoners. During the Cold War these types of accusations were very prevalent. The problem today is that American use of hegemonic power is being called into question by nearly everyone in the world making American exceptionalism harder to justify. Although all global citizens would benefit from the US thwarting terrorist plots, we need to be very careful to not lower the floor on what we recognize as acceptable interrogation practices by too much. If the floor were pushed too low, the entire system and protection provided by the Geneva Convention would fall apart.

[Hannah Case]

Do the rules of the Geneva Convention still apply today in what has been called “Asymmetrical” warfare between the United States, other nations and terrorism? I believe in order to wage a legitimate fight against Al Queda we must first reorganize the way we address interrogation and the efficacy of torture to include a wider scope of government beyond the President and Vice President and include all branches. By doing so, the United States will appear more united against the War on Terror and other nations will not be so skeptical about turning over war criminals to us even though we may be breaking Geneva Convention procedures. Rothkkopf talks about in Running The World that in the post- 9/11 world, we must modernize our policies and even philosophies. He addresses a new understanding of the world and without “new attitudes at the top and the bureaucratic cultural changes that are required” (447) the United States will not be able to wage an effective war against enemies who are willing to pay the ultimate cost everyday dying for radical beliefs and united through their hatred of America. I believe that a fresh approach to torture is needed, but that does not mean softening our methods but rather adapting new policies based on a new kind of enemy that continues to challenge the US everyday.

[Jenna Lally]

The concept of torture and justice poses an interesting debate especially in the current age of terrorism. The accords from the Geneva Convention only apply to combatants. Since, the world is no longer black and white or nation versus nation the term combatant becomes debatable. Rothkkopf in “Running the World” poses an interesting question: “what philosophical framework for dealing with our role as the sole superpower in the era of these changing global dynamics should we develop?” (447). Do we follow Kant’s categorical imperative and resist torture as we would want the same done for our own citizens or do we act according to the moment and torture as we see fit claiming that to be “just”. The response by the US Government needs to be better defined. I agree that the power to make such a decision about torture can not rest in the hands of one small group because its implications can affect a larger part of the world. The United States is critically looked at in terms of polices, economics and even morals. As a result, we need to take a hard stance and not succumb to the ambiguity that currently exists. As a dominating country, it is our responsibility to set an example and redefine what we said at the Geneva Conference decades ago.

[Emma Woods]

The question of torture in interrogating suspected terrorists is one that needs to be looked at strictly in regards to the unique war in which the U.S. and many parts of the world are currently engaged – the war on terror. As was stated, certain precedents no longer apply, such as those set forth in the Geneva Convention, because war as we know it has changed. This is a war that is not between nations who have openly declared war, but rather the force that threatens us is one that we cannot locate, communicate with, or appease. There are no ambassadors to terrorists, no negotiating parties, and no mutual interests. Our defense rests more on intelligence than military strength, and our goal is to intercept terrorist plots before they reach our soil. In this war, we are concerned not so much with military casualties, but with the loss of innocent civilian life. Because the war and the enemy are different, our standards of what is acceptable must also change. When the enemy chooses to resort to terrorism, they are, as Ambassador Walker stated, operating “outside the path of global norms” that usually would not condone torture. When they choose this alternate path, the United States is forced to also take a different course in order to adapt to this warfare and best protect its citizens, a path in which intelligence is vital. It does not mean that we should sink to the ruthless level of terrorists, only that we need to reevaluate our old standards.
This being said, the U.S. must also keep in mind its alliances with other nations. It is in our best interest to get international support in catching terrorists – what good will it do to have torture laws that will help us get more information if other countries refuse to hand terrorists over? Thus we must try to strike a balance that is both harsh and thorough in dealing with terrorist threats and shows other countries that we are trying to be as humane as possible.

[Andrew Small]

In light of one of the worst terrorist attacks to have ever occurred around the world, September 11th, the people of our country have every right to ponder the rights and wrongs of terrorism and how it is to be handled. Without a doubt, terrorism is a terrible thing and dealing with it can be even worse. Living in a country with such standards as 'equality for all' makes the situation even more difficult to cope with. We may have one thing in mind, but proceed to act in a different light due to the severity of such terrorist issues. Due to the levels of terrorism to which our country has experienced I strongly believe that torture to some extent is quite necessary and in most cases feel that it will help in our protection from terrorism. At the same time, a certain level of torture should not only be set, but followed. All in all, torture of some degree is necessary to curb further terrorist attacks, but also not at a level of any means necessary.

[Christie Sauve]

I feel that Ambassador Walker makes a valid point when he states that "perhaps it is time for the international community to review these standards" set forth in the Geneva Convention. However, I would argue that as cruel and horrific as terrorism is, the United States must set an example for the humane treatment of all individuals. The freedom from torture and cruel or inhumane treatment is one of the most fundamental of human rights. Though documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution fail to adequately establish laws for new world crises and events, the core values established in these documents still carry a great deal of weight today. Similarly, the Geneva Convention though seemingly out of date and archaic, adequately upholds the just and humane treatment of all individuals. It is with these core values of "liberty and justice for all" that the United Nations must create an updated document to deal with this war on terror. There must be a similar approach to the punishment of war criminals and terrorists that was set forth in the original document.
The current administration has openly stated that it claims the right to torture at its own discretion. Yet, I wonder what kind of an example this sets for human rights activists under repressive regimes around the world? These activists look to this country for leadership and moral guidance. Terrorism is a vital threat to the safety and security of all nations around the world; however, the United States must hold fast to its civilized and fair methods of punishing criminals in a humane and structured way. This "eye for an eye" approach to torture, though a seemingly easy fix to the current problem, will lead to numerous unhealthy developments in the future and set bad examples for countries around the world.
Though the terrorists have "chosen their path" of inhumanity and violence, the United States must choose its own path of morality and look to the core values that this nation was founded upon in order to make current decisions. Terrorism is just another form of violence and therefore should be approached in a similar manner as any other form of violence. As awful and horrendous as terrorism and terrorist regimes are, the United States must looks to its justice system to rule over the fate of these aggressors in a civilized and structured way.

[Greg Rogan]

The internationally frowned upon U.S torture tactics are short term solutions for global terrorist problems. It positively effects the U.S anti terrorism efforts by its results in obtaining helpful information. However, at the same time it gives the terrorist organizations more and more reasons to 'justify' their cause. With this cycle, the problem always remains. The U.S will always be trying to catch terrorist and the threat will always remain. I completely agree that the U.S needs Middle Eastern states backing in the fight against terrorism. This backing can come in some slow education movement that lessens the population's fundamental hatred of the West. Knowledge of another culture makes it easier to understand the operations of an other culture. An understanding may reduce the hatred.
I don't know what the U.S should do about their torture tactics. It both helps and hurts them. I'm guessing it weighs more on the help side otherwise these guys probably would have cut it out by now.

[Allie Berkley]

We say that Hitler and Sadam Hussein tortured, that the Falun Gong in China, whose organs are sold at markets, are tortured; generally speaking we judge this type of “torture” as an unjustified act or evildoing. I, however, ask: “Can you think of a time or place where it is permissible or morally acceptable to torture?” I argue yes. If for example a loved one is captured and you stumble upon the person that you are sure is the captor, would you not use all force necessary, save for killing the person, to find your loved one’s location?” I would be hard pressed to find anyone who would respond “no”. The problem, however, arises if say for example, you are “kind of” sure that the person or persons you have stumbled upon know the location of your loved one. You then find yourself in a gray area where there is no neon arrow pointing you towards the “right decision”. It is in this indefinable moral gray area that the debate about the use of torture in the War on Terror finds itself. President Bush has outlined his foreign policy largely in terms of the “Us. Vs. them” scenario: you are either in favor of terrorism or you aren’t. The moral dichotomy this creates is an effective mobilization tool, but fails however, to account for the means by which the “good guys” eliminate the “terrorists”. We cannot expect to engage in a war and only kill the specified enemy and we can not expect the people we capture who “might be terrorists” to divulge information without being interrogated or “tortured.” In a perfect world, we could come up with a list of interrogation techniques that we deemed morally acceptable, a list we deemed morally repugnant and then delineate the former “interrogation” and the latter “torture.” However, until we solve global hunger, and end child prostitution and ethnic cleansing, I am willing to accept that we do not live in a perfect world and also accept that sometimes torture, when used as a means to a morally desirable end, is permissible and even the right thing to do.

[Rose Zourdos]

Professor Walker has raised some compelling thoughts on the justice and efficacy of torture. I do believe that the Geneva Convention is inapplicable to today's global society. Since terrorists have targeted U.S. civilians they can not be considered prisoners of war. Additionally, I do not think that terrorists warrant the justice that our civil liberties ensure our citizens, or citizens of any nation for that matter. A terrorist can not be given the rights and liberties of citizens because they forgo that right by targeting innocent civilians. They can not be given rights they inherently take from others. By terrorists targeting civilians they violate just war criteria. The United States reserves the right to preemptively defend itself against these terrorists and guarantee our national security, also according to just war criteria. In order for the United States to defend itself, it cannot use conventional means of warfare, it instead has to infiltrate the terrorist organizations and use torture to elicit information that could be critical to our security. I think terrorism is an exceptional case where torture can be justified because we are not dealing with a rational state or even rational actors. I think a step in resolving the problem of terrorism and ultimately the use of torture is to get the support of other countries. The United States can not act nor survive on its own.

[Tanya Shpiniova]

The role of the United States within the international system has evolved considerably over time, and its current level and scope of influence are arguably unique and historically unprecedented. In order to sustain this relative power and safeguard our national security, American administrations will need to maintain a positive image and a sense of legitimacy on a global level. This image has suffered in recent years, and the resulting backlash poses a direct threat to U.S. interests and security, particularly when it takes the form of terrorism. Because terrorism is a relatively new variable within the global system, traditional approaches, and historical precedent, may no longer be applicable. Additionally, modern technology has made it possible for small, subnational groups to inflict enormous damage on their targets. In light of this tremendous capacity to do harm, and the elusive nature of the terrorist threat, it seems that occasional moral infractions and violations of individuals’ human rights may constitute an evil that is necessary in order to prevent a greater tragedy. Nonetheless, the nation’s political and diplomatic efforts will not ultimately be effective unless American policies are consistent with American rhetoric and broader democratic message. The challenge here is to find the point of compromise between national security and protection of global human rights.

[Cameron Gaylord]

With regards to the Geneva convention, the standards relating to the relationships between prisoners of war and their captors is often ignored and inapplicable to the war on terror. Washington declares that the accords agreed upon at the Geneva convention dealt primarily with prisoners of war. Yet what this administration is trying to prove is that, these terrorists are not necessarily prisoners of war due to the fact that they aren't declaring their allegiance to a specific state, but to a culture and more straight forwardly, a religion. Because of the absence of state recognition, the Geneva Convention does not necessarily apply to the war on terror.
Recently America's relations with the rest of the world is at an all time low. If we are to improve our image, we need to uphold what our country is based upon (liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc..) by applying them to a renewed foreign policy. Due to the difficulty of the situation we are in right now and due to the increasing tensions between the culture of the middle east and the west, we must revamp our foreign policy and how we treat our prisoners of war in order to regain faith in the American ideology.

[Meghan Hepp]

I think Amb. Walker raised some interesting points that will be a matter of lots of discussion and decision making in the future. However, the problem of terrorism and how we need to handle suspected terrorists is a problem that cannot wait for legislation, but rather it is something that needs preemptive action by the Bush administration and the rest of the world. I agree that international organizations need to be developed to help fight terror and help answer the questions of interrogation and torture. Yet, I think the United States, as Bush said, is not going to wait for a “permission slip” from the rest of the world to protect our nation. Other states involvement will prove to be essential in the fight against terror. Yet, it is impractical for America to wait for their involvement if we are still a main target for these terror groups. When other countries continue to recognize terror as a global problem I believe we will see the creation of an international organization that is willing to deal with problem that terrorist are non-state actors.
As for the concept that the Arab countries having a stake in the issue, I believe that the possibility of their support is idealistic. First of all, many of the Arab countries are gaining financial benefits from the terrorist organizations that are operating within their boarders. Secondly, gaining support for the eradication of the terrorist organization may not be that feasible. For example, one reason that Hezbollah is able to so successfully run its organization in Lebanon is because they have the support of the people. Many Lebanese civilians are the wives, sisters, brothers, mothers, and fathers of the Hezbollah terrorists. Therefore, it may not even be possible for the Lebanese government to support the termination of the Hezbollah operation that takes place in their boarders.
Concerning harsh interrogation and torture I believe that many Americans believe that the United States will have continue to deal with fundamental Islamic world, and would rather do it on their soil and our administrations terms then our soil and the terrorist terms.

[Arthur Giovannangeli]

America is in a very delicate situation with regards to torture. While it owes an obligation to its citizens, to protect them from the threats posed by terrorists, it also must be mindful of its global image and how a negative perception will hinder future foreign negotiations. In an effort to save face and lives at the same the United States should try to work with many of the other actors in the global war on terror to try to build a consensus on what are appropriate procedures for interrogating potential terrorists. As Professor Walker stated the Geneva Conventions were not drafted with the consideration of a war against "non-state actors" and the world would do well to "review" them. Regardless of whether or not the Geneva Conventions are actually altered, the international community would do well to establish a set of rules regarding the interrogation of terrorists. If the United States is truly not alone in the war on terror other nations also facing the issue of terrorism should be receptive to such an agreement. If the U.S. were able to help create such a set of rules it would help improve their world wide image and draw clear lines on the issue of torture.

[Scott Iseman]

Professor Walker's thoughts on torture make perfect sense. Our willingness to torture reveals our willingness to compromise the ideas that our success is based on. If we are going to lead, then we must lead by example and have the integrity to hold ourselves to our ownstandards.
I disagree, however, with Professor Walker's phrasing that "...the Administration seemed to believe that we were the only player on the board when it came to fighting terrorism. Yet, what we have seen over the past five years has been a growing recognition that terrorism is a global problem and a global issue." After September 11th, the US appealed to the world community for help to fight the global threat of terrorism. We saw it as a threat to liberal democracies around the world and to us as a liberal democracy. Yet, no other nations felt the effects, save the UK, in the same way we did. Thus our efforts to seek a "coalition of the willing" and UN mandates before entering Iraq were hindered by those who had did not fully understand the impact global terrorism.
Only over the last five years has the rest of the "free world" come to realize terrorism also threatens them. This fear became real though the terrorist attacks in London, Madrid and Bali.
Unfortunately, the way the US played "the game" leaves the US relatively alone in the global war on terror - a game where cooperation is paramont.

[Niels Lesniewski]

I think a significant question that still has not been answered in this whole debate about interrogation techniques to what extent torture "works." We do not even know whether or not if by torturing a terrorist with imminent knowledge of a suitcase bomb in Manhattan we would have a better chance of locating the device before the explosion.
But, assuming for a moment that torture does “work”, the best solution to this problem in asymmetric warfare may be rendition, as much as we would rather not admit that. Secret prisons operated under CIA auspices by third-party states with “questionable” human rights records lend "plausible deniability" to the US leadership (they can blame rogue CIA operatives).
However, using methods akin to those cited as being out of bounds in regards to Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions at a facility like the Naval base in Guantanamo creates a different issue. In that case, the responsibility falls squarely on the United States Military and the Uniform Code of Military Justice would seem to compel the NCIS to investigate all allegations of torture and US service members to justice. The kinds of arguments about the chain-of-command and fulfilling orders of superiors raised in those cases, as happened following the disastrous conduct at Abu Ghraib should give this, or any other Administration pause before allowing the military to involve itself in any such unbecoming conduct.

[Emily Byron]

Aside from determining whether or not it's necessary to morally justify torture, we should address John McCain's arguements about how the method negatively affects the quality of intelligence. In one historical example, during the Dirty War the Argentine government tried to control its political situation by capturing and torturing students and politically active youths, forcing suspects to reveal names of other actors who threatened the government's stability. After prolonged periods of isolation, starvation, rape, beatings, and electric shock treatment, torture victims would continue to list names until the suffering ended in either release or death. Even if individuals named were innocent of the junta's charges, the cycle continued as they would be captured and forced to reveal information. While the analogy is imperfect because the military junta was running the country undemocratically, it illustrates how torture victims can pervert intelligence. Also, even if torture is accurately targeted, an interrogator has to consider when a subject is providing false information to divert the goals of the military. I am genuinely interested to hear more about efficacy, because I recognize that my views may reflect ignorance or misunderstanding about the intricacies of torture and interrogation.

[Boitumelo Sisulu]

As Ambassador Walker points out, terrorism is undoubtedly a global problem that extends well beyond the U.S. Accorrdingly, the onus is on not only the U.S but other states as well to collectivley combat the threat of terror. Nevertheless, this does not justify the means (i.e torture)that the current as well as past administration(s) employ in the "fight against terrorism." What is particularly problematic is that what we (in the U.S) often fail or neglect to recognize is that terrorism didn't not suddenly become a global problem after 9/11 it has always been one; yet it seems that the U.S only became keenly aware of and interested in this matter when it was directly affected. Much like so many developing countries in the Middle East, Africa, South America, etc were and continue to be. The U.S cannot expect unwavering and unconditional support from the world if it is not willing to be held to the same standards that it expects of everyone else.