You walk into your home to find an armed intruder threatening to shoot your spouse and children, trapped with nowhere to run. Fortunately, you have a gun. You try to negotiate, but the intruder is in no mood to talk. His intention is murder.
Do enhanced interrogations comply with i-law?
Since the primary task of the President during a time of war is protecting US citizens, anything hindering him in that capacity -US and international law or even Congress- can be considered unconstitutional.
John Yoo contends that the Congressional check on Presidential war making power comes from its power of the purse, and that the President, and not the Congress or courts, has sole authority to interpret international treaties such as the Geneva Convention "because treaty interpretation is a key feature of the conduct of foreign affairs".
These views on executive power are known as the unitary executive theory. US Department of Justice Memo, March 14,justifying enhanced interrogation techniques - "In wartime, it is for the President alone to decide what methods to use to best prevail against the enemy The President's complete discretion in exercising the Commander-in Chief power has been recognized by the courts.
One of the core functions of the Commander in Chief is that of capturing, detaining, and interrogating members ofthe enemy. It is well settled that the President may seize and detain enemy combatants, at least for the duration of the conflict, and the laws of war make clear that prisoners may be interrogated for information concerning the enemy, its strength, and its plans.
Numerous Presidents have ordered the capture, detention, and questioning of enemy combatants during virtually every major conflict in the Nation's history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. John Yoo's analysis that the US President was not bound by the Geneva Conventions, and was free to implement enhanced interrogations even if they flaunted these conventions, was based upon work about World War II by Carl Schmitt.
Examples of arguments used by Schmitt according to Horton: Rumsfeld authorised these specific techniques Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. Any interrogation technique that attempts to coerce individuals into providing information or confessions against their will is inherently degrading and morally abhorrent.
Coercion by force or intimidation inherently violates the integrity and dignity of an individual with the hope of exploiting that moment of vulnerability to obtain information or gain some advantage. This is abhorrent because it violates principles of human decency and dignity, even toward enemies that would not grant us such dignity.
Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners, including terrorists. Rumsfeld that, contrary to what the Bush administration advocated, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees in the war on terrorism and as such the Military Tribunals used to try suspects were violating the law.
The Court reaffirmed that those involved in mistreatment of detainees violate US and international law. Through those years, we held our own values.
We should continue to do so.The debate on enhanced interrogation is not about right or wrong, it’s about duty to country. We ask our soldiers to do the unthinkable in war for duty to country.
It’s time our politicians quit trying to define the moral standards of war. Either outlaw enhanced interrogation or clearly define it into law. What we have been clear about, and what the president has been clear about, is that he does not believe that the use of these enhanced interrogation techniques is justified.
Enhanced Interrogation and Torture. [Gary Wiener] Home. WorldCat Home About WorldCat Help. Search. Search for Library Items Search for Lists Search for The Complex Moral Debate Over Enhanced Interrogation and Torture Enhanced Interrogation Is Justified If It Saves LivesHarsh Interrogation Techniques Are Necessary for the Greater Good.
Enhanced Interrogation is Justified By: Nathan Ciatti English III 4A March 2, Throughout the past century, the United States has faced a multitude of foreign and domestic threats against the homeland. Despite Obama's repeated assurances that CIA officials who applied harsh interrogation methods under the Bush administration will not be prosecuted, experts say .
In Defense of Guantanamo Bay and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. In Defense of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques: Rush Limbaugh is justified in calling Guantánamo “Club Gitmo.”.