The Bybee Torture Memo
On August 1, 2002, Justice Jay Bybee submitted the “Bybee Memo” or the ‘Torture Memo”, which describes the behavior that U.S. officials must exercise when interrogating outside of the continental U.S. as governed by the UN Convention Against Torture. Although this memo was rendered inoperable by the Bush Administration in 2004; for years, it gave license to American troops to inflict cruel amounts of pain, effectively “torture” upon their prisoners under the label of “coercive interrogation”. Michael Hatfield, a Professor at Texas Tech School of Law published his rebuttal to the Bybee Memo indicating that from a natural law perspective that torture, even disguised as “coercive interrogation” was fundamentally a moral wrong and should be illegal. Was his argument fair however?
In the opinion of this author, his argument is fair and includes the following strengths: that although torture is prohibited by a number of world declarations, it is so fundamental to international order that it does not need to be embodied in written credos; that simply masking “torture” as other words, does not render it legally justifiable and that by claiming necessity of the lesser of two evils, that torture does not necessarily lead to a betterment in the world; rather a deterioration. Possible pitfalls of his argument include a ignorance of the realist point of view by understanding the political and social needs of the nation at the time the memo was drafted as well as ...
... middle of paper ...
...made acceptable by the guise of euphemisms and the defense of necessity claims that torture was a lesser of two evils, however we know that it does not prevent violence; it only spawns it. This is contrary to the fundamental need for the law; which is to organize threats and create a greater good. In our “civilized society”, torture is morally so distasteful, that we would not own such practices as our own and we have various written documents that state it is not acceptable. However, when we think of Nazi Germany, Vietnam or countries in South America; we snub their military practices as being repugnant, and vile.
The Bybee Memo: Memorandum for Alberta R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President; Office of the Assistant Attorney General, US Department of Justice, August 1, 2002
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
McCraw, David, and Stephen Gikow. “The End to a Unspoken Bargain? National Security and Leaks in a Post-Pentagon Papers World.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 48.2 (2013): 473-509. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
Alan Dershowitz challenges the legitimization of non-lethal torture in his essay, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be tortured?” He claims that torture should indeed be legitimized for specific scenarios that require such action. The ticking bomb terrorist gives the example of a terrorist withholding time-sensitive information that could result in the death of innocent citizens, if not shared. Not only does Dershowitz challenge the idea of torture, but he also gives a probable solution that favors the legitimization the torture. He mentions three values that would have to be complied with by all three branches of government if it were to be legitimated, which Dershowitz does endorse. The arguments of the two perspectives discussed in the
Smith, Michael. "The Downing Street Memo." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 16 June 2005. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
there. Therefore, Torture is illegitimate. Torturing is however, is an illegal act only when the
Nedzi (D-Mich.), Luclen N. “Oversight or Overlook: Congress and the US Intelligence Agency.” A Congressman talk to the CIA senior seminar, November 14, 1979, https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol18no2/pdf/v18i2a02p.pdf (accessed January 7, 2014).
Until there is a credible way to determine whether or not torture is in fact effective, I pass judgment that the practice should be discontinued. The question as to if the torture policy is a human rights violation or if it holds crucial necessity, is not answered in the essay. Applebaum explores the reality that torture possesses negative implications on the inflictor. After presented with the compelling stance and evidence, Applebaum raises the interesting question as to why so much of society believes that torture is successful. I agree that the torture policy is wrong, a point emphasized by Applebaum, contrary to the popular attitude surrounding the topic.
Gorinson, Stanley M., and Kevin P. Kane. “The Accidental Three Mile Island: The Role of
The book’s title, with its dry allusion to the separation of powers, does not do it justice. “Guantánamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power” represents the best account yet of what Mr. Margulies calls “a human rights debacle that will eventually take its place alongside other wartime misadventures, including the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the prosecutions under the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War.”
The notion that fear will make a human leak information is not a novel idea. Torture has widely been used throughout the world by many groups of people. After World War II, The Geneva Convention prohibited any nation from partaking in torture. The emergence of terrorist activity on American soil brought up the question whether torture should be advocated or prohibited from a moral standpoint. The US changed the definition of torture in order to forcibly attain potentially important information from captives. Even though the new clause suggested that many of the methods the US used were now legal, other countries still had an issue in terms of honoring the Geneva Convention and basic human rights. Advocates for torture promise that countless innocent lives can be saved from the information obtained from a single torture victim. Opponents to the advocates suggest that torture often results in misleading information. Morally, torture is not justified as it degrades humans and often leaves victims scarred for life and possibly dead.
Wu, E. Y. (2014, April 28). 3 DOMESTIC SPYING AND WHY AMERICA SHOULD AVOID THE SLIPPERY SLOPE. Retrieved from lawweb: http://lawweb.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/rlsj/assets/docs/Wu_Final.pdf
According to Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, a memorandum is meant to protect the writer instead of being issued to inform the reader. I believe that the quote by Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson is not accurate. This statement creates ambiguity because the primary purpose why the writer issues a memorandum is to inform the reader. If the purpose is just to protect the writer and not to inform the reader, just for the sake of issuance, then such memo is of no use. However, this paper seeks to discuss the relevance of both—a memorandum is intended to inform the reader and it is also used to protect the writer.
Around the world and around the clock, human rights violations seem to never cease. In particular, torture violations are still rampant all over the world. One regime, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, establishes a strong elaboration of norms against torture. Despite its efforts, many countries still outright reject its policies against torture while other countries openly accept them, but surreptitiously still violate them. The US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have all failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.
On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...