The knowledge claim of this article is whether to or not to prosecute CIA officers who have been considered guilty in ill treating prisoners in order to extract information from them regarding terrorist activities and other crimes. The extract provided is based on many perceptions of the same which have been tried to be justified in their own ways. However, the biased information in the article makes it difficult for the reader to reason out the reality of the situation and hence to come to a perfect conclusion.
In the article we may witness how perceptions themselves are biased between individuals. In the beginning we read that a particular source alleges abuse on a Abd al-Rahim (a former terrorist) by the CIA who used torture as a method of communication in order to retrieve 'supposed' information of terrorist activities. A similar perspective is shared by Newsweek and Anthony D. Romero (executive of the ACLU), who perceive that the emotions of fear have been used as a language inorder to disclose information from terrorist by illtreating them in an 'illgal' manner such as, for example, firing a gun in the room next to one terrorist suspect so he would think that another prisoner was being executed. The final intention was to scare the suspect to such an extent that he would eventually give out information may it be the truth or just a false story to get away from being tortured.
These prosecutors reason these events out by displaying their proof which they aquired from a leaked CIA Inspector General's report; also another official claims that a dozen of officers were accused of misconduct with the prisoners/ detainees, however most of them escaped punishment as the case was referred to the Justice Department.
In contrast another perception from the CIA's spokesman, Paul Gimiliano's point of view also arises. He says that the CIA is not responsible for the acts commited as they had been discussed with Department of Justice before hand and 'that's how the system works'. But, another CIA spokesman could not talk of the specifics of the reports as he might not be having any reason to debate, but he mentioned that the subject was reviewed by government prosecutors.
On the other hand the Bush administration had taken measures to prevent such happenings by shifting such detainees from these secret prisons to federal prison. Why? This was the result of emotion. Humanitarian Laws brought justice to these detainees.
A good correlation to India can also be made here when we speak of the Indian Freedom Struggle and how freedom fighters were considered terrorists for example Bhagat Singh and how he and his other mates were tortured physically and psychologically to submit to the British Government, for instance when they poisonous milk was forced down their throat. Also similar things were done with the Jews under Hitler's dictatorship, for example, being locked up in rooms filled with poison gas.
The problem however still lies in the bias of right and wrong. Who was actually at fault and who wasn't. This is what creates a question mark on justification. However, to a large extent the final decision is taken on terms of generalizations to reach some conclusion may it be the right one or not.
In the article we may witness how perceptions themselves are biased between individuals. In the beginning we read that a particular source alleges abuse on a Abd al-Rahim (a former terrorist) by the CIA who used torture as a method of communication in order to retrieve 'supposed' information of terrorist activities. A similar perspective is shared by Newsweek and Anthony D. Romero (executive of the ACLU), who perceive that the emotions of fear have been used as a language inorder to disclose information from terrorist by illtreating them in an 'illgal' manner such as, for example, firing a gun in the room next to one terrorist suspect so he would think that another prisoner was being executed. The final intention was to scare the suspect to such an extent that he would eventually give out information may it be the truth or just a false story to get away from being tortured.
These prosecutors reason these events out by displaying their proof which they aquired from a leaked CIA Inspector General's report; also another official claims that a dozen of officers were accused of misconduct with the prisoners/ detainees, however most of them escaped punishment as the case was referred to the Justice Department.
In contrast another perception from the CIA's spokesman, Paul Gimiliano's point of view also arises. He says that the CIA is not responsible for the acts commited as they had been discussed with Department of Justice before hand and 'that's how the system works'. But, another CIA spokesman could not talk of the specifics of the reports as he might not be having any reason to debate, but he mentioned that the subject was reviewed by government prosecutors.
On the other hand the Bush administration had taken measures to prevent such happenings by shifting such detainees from these secret prisons to federal prison. Why? This was the result of emotion. Humanitarian Laws brought justice to these detainees.
A good correlation to India can also be made here when we speak of the Indian Freedom Struggle and how freedom fighters were considered terrorists for example Bhagat Singh and how he and his other mates were tortured physically and psychologically to submit to the British Government, for instance when they poisonous milk was forced down their throat. Also similar things were done with the Jews under Hitler's dictatorship, for example, being locked up in rooms filled with poison gas.
The problem however still lies in the bias of right and wrong. Who was actually at fault and who wasn't. This is what creates a question mark on justification. However, to a large extent the final decision is taken on terms of generalizations to reach some conclusion may it be the right one or not.
