| Torture or not? |
 |
 |
 |
| Sunday, 03 May 2009 08:37 | |||
|
South Florida’s Black community is weighing in on the current controversy raging in Washington D.C. and across the country, as to whether former Bush Administration representatives should be charged for torturing prisoners in American prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. At a domino tournament in Perrine last weekend, a simple comment about torture generated heated arguments, with those arguing in favor of torture outweighing those against the practice. The debate came on the heels of the Obama administration’s release of documents that indicated that various forms of torture, including ‘water boarding’ were used on prisoners suspected of terrorist acts against the USA. However, U.S. and international laws stipulate that using torture to get information from prisoners is illegal and immoral. The days of the Spanish Inquisition in the 15th century, when torture was the common tool used to get information from Spain’s enemies are long gone. The argument of those against torture is that there are alternatives in modern society to get such information. On the other hand, those who would want to use practices akin to torture argue that the enemy is not hesitant to use inhumane tactics to destroy their society. When the perpetuators are caught, those in favor of torture see nothing wrong in using the most painful and human debilitating measures to get information to ensure that the people behind the terrorist plans are found, and the plans foiled. Adding an element of confusion to the issue of whether to torture or not, is that U.S. laws created agencies like the CIA, for the specific purpose of getting information from or pertaining to the nation’s enemies to ensure its security. It is no secret that there are occasions on which these agencies use very harsh measures to get the required information. If these measures are interpreted as torture, they therefore become illegal. Perhaps there is some validity to members of the former Bush administration arguing that the methods used to get information from individuals accused of being involved in the 9/11 attacks are justified. This particular enemy was planning to severely cripple the core of America’s business and politics, and made it known there could be more attacks. The big question is: Does the use of torture provide the required, or reliable, intelligence? Is the intelligence obtained just glib answers given by individuals weary of the pain, unable to endure more suffering? Yet another question: Would any valid or reliable information be obtained from these prisoners during formal trials by the state, where they would have legal representatives bent on twisting the truth? Herein lies a dilemma. The fact is that there are laws against torture, and America is a country built on strict laws which must be adhered. Lawyers working for the Bush administration reinterpreted these laws to enable the CIA to assume that it was legal to use intelligence-seeking measures
|
|||
| Last Updated on Sunday, 03 May 2009 08:37 |
You may send a trackback for this article by using the following Trackback link
Trackbacks provided by Trackback for Joomla