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.
How would you justify the comparison of innocent victims of tyranny like Jews under Hitler and Indian freedom fighters against British rule with the torture of terrorists/ former terrorists like Abd Al rahim who are responsible for killing hundreds/ thousands of innocent people. In your opinion do you think those who are responsible for such criminal, unethical acts have the right to cry foul when they are tortured for information that is vital to prevent other terrorist attacks?
ReplyDeleteIn my perspective a terrorist is not only a person who kills physically but also psychologically. They are the ones who commit violent acts which are intended to create the emotion of fear (terror). Hence looking at this thought, I feel the British and Hitler are two terrorists too. They too killed thousands of innocent people, used unethical acts (like slavery), and many other things that can be considered under terrorist activities.
ReplyDeleteWithout any intrusion of my emotions (i.e. thinking 'practically'), my opinion regarding this subject would be a YES for torturing the terrorist; possibly using unethical methods to do so in order to retrieve information from them. However it should not go to an extent of inhumanity.
With my emotions in place I would go against the stand mentioned above as I feel that eventually we are all humans and if we take unethical methods for the extraction of information then it would be inhuman!...So i feel mercy should be shown...the criminals are in prison to do their time there. Interrogations should be taken rather than acting harshly with inmates. The main aim of a prison is to mentally bring criminals back to reality and hence make them realize their mistakes, however if this does not take place, it is not considered the fault of the criminal as he himself is serving his time. Why should he be blamed for somebody else's fate? He is anyways suffering in prison then why should he be tortured more than he is supposed to?
Do you actually think Humanitarian Laws brought justice to these deatiness. All that was done was that one of the officials was reprimanded. Is this enough?
ReplyDeleteAlso the entire idea of detainment is agianst Humanitarian Laws. The point is that governments disregard these laws and have legalised detainment. With this blatant disregard do you actually think they care what Humanitarian Laws say?