This week's reading hasn't been easy.
With the topic of torture we like to think that we are somehow
separated from that of the witch-hunts, but that is not entirely
true. Photos and recorded documents of the Abu Ghraib incident prove
that.
During the war in Iraq, military
personnel stationed at Abu Ghraib prison were said to have abused
detainees with various forms of torture and sexual violence. It was
said that these acts of torture were used as a means of gathering
information, such as in the incidents of the witch-hunts. What is
also similar to the witch-hunts, is that torture was authorized by
government military leaders. "There was evidence that
authorization for the torture had come from high up in military
hierarchy, with allegations being made that Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld had authorized some of the actions" (Wikipedia).
As we have read before, many people
react differently to the topic of torture and with this incident in
particular. In the "Global Reaction" section of the
Wikipedia article, it quotes Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, the foreign
minister of the Vatican, saying that this incident at Abu Ghraib was
"a more serious blow to the United States than September 11,
2001 attacks. Except that the blow was not inflicted by terrorists
but by the Americans against themselves" (Wikipedia). This means
that since the incident has proven that the United States is in fact
willing to use torture, that the rest of the world will look on the
country very poorly, and possibly even encourage new enemies.
However, many people also responded in favor of the torture, saying
that if it is necessary, it should be used.
These might be a hard questions to ask,
but what do you think of the whole "scandal"?
Do you think that torture should be
permitted as a means of gaining information?
"Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse." Wikipedia.org.
Great post Sarah Lee,
ReplyDeleteAs the film about Abu Ghraib played in class I found it difficult to watch in during some senses. Torture seems like a mild word for the type of physical and physiological abuse these detainees went through in Iraq. This film just proves that history does repeat its self and even though we do not believe torture necessarily gets the desired results however, we still use it to get some type of answers.
Sarah Lee,
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing and sharing a great blog post with us! In light of our recent paper assignment, it’s great to see your thoughts on one of the potential topics.
I’m unsure whether or not I would consider the Abu Ghraib scandal a “more serious blow to the United States” than the September 11th attacks, regardless of whether or not it was commit by Americans or by foreign terrorists. Although I personally believe that the usage of torture is abhorrent, and is something that should not be taken lightly by any means, I do see a purpose that it can potentially serve, and when used against horrible individuals to prevent further horrible actions, I believe it can be justified. Having other countries aware that we are willing to use such methods in order to extract information shows that we have an established track record of performing actions that may be frowned upon by other societies in order to punish those responsible for crimes against our country, and to ensure the security of our citizens. It does definitely hold a negative connotation with it, but it could lead to hesitance on the part of our potential enemies.
So, to answer your question, yes, I believe that torture should be permitted as a means of gaining information. Although it’s horrible that the rules and laws of the Geneva Conventions cannot cover these prisoners, since they’re not declared as prisoners of war, no laws are being broken if permanent organ damage is not being inflicted, if these “crimes” or instances are not taking place on American soil, and if they are approved and/or sanctioned, such as in the case with the previous authorization by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.
Thanks for a great post and for sharing some thoughts and your research!
Graham