Assignment 1.2 docx.docx

Plagiarism declaration: I have consulted the department policy on plagiarism and attached a signed plagiarism form. This work is my own. Was the United States justified to defy international law conventions and use torture in the war against terrorism? Introduction According to Dershowitz (2002:135), the United States Fifth Amendment forbids compelled admission of guilt, in other words, statements elicited by means of torture may not be introduced into evidence against the defendant who has been tortured. In addition to constitutional restraints, the United States is also restricted by its treaty compulsions such as the Geneva Convention Against Torture which have a force of law thus forbids all forms of torture and provides for no exceptions (Dershowitz, 2002:135). More so, torture violates inalienable human rights that may never be suspended, even during emergencies (Bellamy, 2006:124). It is argued that torture cannot be defended in a morally consistent approach that is claiming a moral right to torture prisoners to extract militarily necessary information creates precedent that others may use (Bellamy, 2006:124). According to Merriam Webster dictionary, torture is the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce or afford sadistic pleasure to a person. This essay is aimed at arguing that the United States was not at all justified to defy international law conventions and use torture in the war against terrorism. According to Dershowitz (2002:135), torture can be depicted as any demonstration by which agony or suffering, regardless of whether physical or mental, is purposefully inflicted on a person. In line with this point, torture is used for reasons such as getting from him or a third individual information or an admission, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person (Dershowitz 2002:135). In addition, Dershowitz (2002:135) is of the view that such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or the acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Bellamy (2006:127) supports this description of torture as he points out the same aspects as pointed out above. According to Bellamy (2006:126), torture is explicitly forbidden in an extensive range of human rights conventions and is widely considered a crime against humanity. Numerous world states if not all are party to one or more conventions prohibiting torture (Bellamy, 2006:126). For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 asserts that no individual shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment (Bellamy, 2006:126). More so, Bellamy (2006:126) points out that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 supports the Universal Declaration mentioned above as it goes on to ban precisely brutality to life and individuals such as killing of any sort, disfigurement, inhuman conduct and torture to mention a few. Torture and inhuman conduct were also explicitly banned in the United Nations Convention against Torture of 1984 (Bellamy, 2006:126). The United States is a signatory to the conventions mentioned above which prohibit all forms of torture and inhuman treatment (Bellamy, 2006:126). This therefore makes the United States’ defiance of international law conventions and use torture in the war against terrorism unjustified. DONE According to Bellamy (2006:126), the legal prohibition of torture is generally accepted as an authoritative regulation, as derogation is regarded impermissible. This point is substantiated by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which asserts that no derogation from the proscription on torture is conceivable even in periods of public crises which threatens the life of the state (Bellamy, 2006:126). In fact, the European and American Conventions on Human Rights forbid derogation in periods of conflict, public emergency and even when the emergencies endanger the survival of the nation (Bellamy, 2006:126). According to Bellamy (2006:127), the International Committee of the Red Cross reiterates this point through its editorial on the 1949 convention by affirming that no conceivable gap is left thus there can be no reason, no attenuating conditions in which torture might be allowed. In line with this paragraph, the United States is not in any way justified on using torture in the war against terrorism. DONE According to Bellamy (2006:129), torture is regarded as legally wrong and there is general agreement that it is immoral. In other words, there is confident and wide consensus that torture is uniquely barbaric and inhuman. Bellamy (2006:129) argues that political and philosophical discourse infers that torture is widely regarded as a straightforward form of deed that is ethically impermissible without exception or qualification. According to Bellamy (2006:129), torture is outstandingly immoral because its chief aim is to coerce its victim into colluding against himself. More so, torture consist of the use of brutality against vulnerable persons thus, it infringes the morality of non-combatant immunity (Bellamy, 2006:126). According to Bellamy (2006:130), it is imperative to note that torture is very wrong as it infringes fundamental principles of humanity. In other words, there is no objection in principle to the idea of human rights that are absolute in the sense of being categorically exception less. It is additionally contended that torture is an attack against the most fundamental of human rights that derive from a person’s very humanity (Bellamy, 2006:130). In line with this paragraph, it is shown that there is evident concord between law and morals that torture and other methods of undignified treatment against detainees are wrong. According to Bellamy (2006:131), both customary rules and philosophical arguments establish a prevailing case, this is proven by the fact that only a few politicians are prepared to openly support torture. As discussed in this paragraph, the United States was clearly not justified on using torture in the war against terrorism because torture is legally wrong, immoral and infringes imperative aspects of humanity. DONE According to Bellamy (2006:138), torture is not an effective method of deriving life saving information thus it cannot be justified in any way. In line with this statement, it is argued that there is no consensus about torture’s effectiveness in deriving life saving information (Bellamy, 2006:138). A good example is that of an FBI counter terrorist interrogator was cited as arguing that interrogating, for example, a naked Muslim fundamentalist was challenging in light of the fact that he will be embarrassed, humiliated and cold. In fact, there is no value in it because he will reveal anything you need to hear to recover his clothes (Bellamy, 2006:138). According to Bellamy (2006:139), torture is only effective at extracting confessions off which at many instances are false. According to Bellamy (2006:127), in a bid to justify the use of force full interrogation methods in the war on terror, the United States Defence Department argued that the President’s power to control military operations is unlimited by international law. According to Bellamy (2006:124), the torturer’s claim that torture always works is no more realistic than the liberal claim that torture does not work, although there are instances where torture has led to the extraction of useful in formation, there are many instances where it has not.