• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Democracy Chronicles

Towards better democracy everywhere.

  • AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
  • WORLD DEMOCRACY
  • POLITICAL ART
  • more
    • election technology
    • money politics
    • political dissidents
    • THIRD PARTY
      • third party central
      • green party
      • justice party
      • libertarian party
    • voting methods
  • DC INFO
    • author central
    • about
    • advertise with DC
    • contact
    • privacy policy
You are here: Home / DC Authors / The Torture Memos Are Not the Answer

The Torture Memos Are Not the Answer

July 7, 2016 by Joan Krickellas Leave a Comment

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet

The Torture Memos

In 1949, just after World War II, the Geneva Conventions were established to set standards for the humanitarian treatment of wartime prisoners. The Conventions are a set of treaties adopted by all nations in the world defining these prisoners’ inalienable rights and stating the protections entitled to the wounded combatants. However, the rise of terrorism has caused for US officials to feel the need to treat those involved with terrorism in a manner that does not abide by the provisions set in the Conventions. Thus, in 2002, they issued the Torture Memos, which lays out a very narrow view of what behavior might constitute torture. This helps interrogators in the CIA avoid prosecution, despite the inhumane actions they are taking against detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and other locations. However, in my opinion, the US’s rejection of the Geneva Convention in favor of the Torture memos is not effective. Such rejection taints the US’s reputation as a nation committed to human rights, allows for the violation of human rights to drastically increase, and provides the president with too much authority as commander in chief.

The US is a nation with strong constitutional protections for basic rights. It is a nation supposedly dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, yet it commits serious violations of these rights when terrorism is brought into question. It is argued that the maltreatment of suspected terrorists is committed to ensure safety and security; torturing them may cause them to eventually disclose information on terrorist activities.

But, how can the US, a nation founded on freedom, allow for the torture of people who are only suspect?

A glimpse into a book I very much enjoyed, the Guantanamo Diary, written by Mohammedou Slahi, who was detained on suspicion of being involved in a plot to bomb Los Angeles international airport, details the acts of torture committed by the US rendition and torture program against him. He was subjected to death threats, sleep deprivation, and sexual humiliation even though there was no evidence against him. Slahi was tortured to the point where he actually made false confessions. The US can be seen by other nations as hypocritical; they may come to realize that the legal standards in the US Constitution do not apply to everyone around the globe and that the US’s commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are merely circumstantial. In Slahi’s circumstance, Constitutional freedoms do not apply. However, if another country detained an American soldier on the grounds of violating humanitarian law, wouldn’t the US want Geneva Convention protections applied to him?

In addition to tainting the US’s reputation, the rejection of the Geneva Conventions by the US could cause an increase in humanitarian crime. If the Conventions do not apply, then not only could the US inflict torture on suspects, but terrorist groups would be open to being able to do so as well. There would be no limits to torture, since the Torture Memos replacing the Conventions have such a narrow definition. If a detainee decides not to divulge information after being shaken or hit, the government could move on to more severe measures, such as the application of electric shocks and rape. Once torture is allowed, setting the limits would be extremely difficult. As a result, no one would be able to enjoy the benefit of their protections as a matter of law.

Finally, the president has the power to approve of any technique needed to protect the nation’s security. Thus, he has the authority to order physical and psychological torture, despite federal laws stating otherwise. In the Pentagon’s torture memo in 2004, the president’s power is justified on the grounds that “the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of criminal law.” However, allowing the president’s powers to override federal laws prohibiting torture implies that his power is supreme, creating an imbalance within the branches of US government, completely violating the strong separation of powers that forms the basis of the Constitution.

No branch of government should be able to act alone, no matter how long and cumbersome the legislative process may be, because by giving the President, one man, too much unbridled power, future tyranny is more likely to occur. I am not claiming to know the answer to tackling terrorism. But, I do know that the Torture Memos are ineffective because we still see, 14 years later, terrorism continuing to rapidly perpetuate and destroy too many innocent lives.

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet

Filed Under: DC Authors Tagged With: Civil Rights

Some highlighted Democracy Chronicles topics

Africa American Corruption American Local Elections American State Elections Asia Capitalism and Big Business Celebrity Politics China Democracy Charity Democracy Protests Democrats Dictatorships Education Election History Election Methods Election Security Election Transparency Europe Internet and Democracy Journalism and Free Speech Middle East Minority Voting Rights Money Politics New York City and State Elections Political Artwork Political Dissidents Political Lobbying Redistricting Republicans Russia Socialism and Labor Social Media and Democracy South America Spying and Privacy Supreme Court Third Party Voter Access Voter ID Voter Registration Voter Suppression Voter Turnout Voting Technology Women Voting Rights Worldwide Worldwide Corruption

About Joan Krickellas

Joan Krickellas is a student at Vassar College majoring in environmental studies, with particular emphasis in biology and women’s studies. Social issues she finds to be of particular interest include those that pertain to human rights, migration/immigration, discrimination, and climate change. She firmly believes that everyone should have the right to voice their opinions. Democracy Chronicles is where she feels comfortable in voicing her own.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

democracy chronicles newsletter

american democracy around the web

  • “Pro-Trump electors indicted in Nevada, the t...
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 1 hour ago
  • “Jack Smith: Trump ‘Agent’ Sought To Cause Ri...
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 3 hours ago
  • “Wisconsin Trump electors settle lawsuit, agr...
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 4 hours ago
  • “Regulating AI Deepfakes and Synthetic Media...
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 4 hours ago
  • Republican FEC Commissioners Block Investigat...
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 5 hours ago