HOW RELIABLE IS INFORMATION GOTTEN THROUGH THE USE OF TORTURE? Torture involves the use of intimidation, humiliation, discomfort and pain to extract information and confessions from prisoners and suspects held by the state. In some countries, state actors have been given the right to use force, but in other circumstances, torture is criminal. The objective of torture is to obtain information. Torture also requires a state to actively harm and intentionally degrade the quality of life of a human being. Following the 9/11, it was said that those responsible for the attacks had used legal limitations placed on the US government’s ability to monitor citizens’ day-to-day lives for evidence of suspicious activity to keep preparations for the attacks secret. Legal safeguards such as the longstanding prohibition on torture were criticised, and the Bush administration said that existing laws were impediments to fighting a new kind of enemy. Hence, the use and applications of torture became the focus of national debate. In 2002, the US governments’ lawyers were required to make a distinction between torture and “coercive interrogation techniques” that members of the intelligence community wished to use against captured terrorist suspects. Throughout 2002 and 2003, the findings of assistant attorney general Jay Bybee were used to justify the use of forceful interrogation against prisoners captured by US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among techniques cleared for use by interrogators were intimidation by guard dogs; enforced nudity; sleep deprivation; temperature manipulation; beatings and simulated drowning. The Bush White House wanted physical coercion to become a routine during the interrogation of terrorist suspects. IN NIGERIA, In the hunt for Boko Haram for instance, security forces sometimes require information about possible attacks. Opponents of the use of physical coercion have repeatedly questioned the validity of the definition of torture, and argue that the difference between ‘physical coercion’ (of the type used at Guantanamo Bay) and ‘torture’ is mere semantics. It is argued that torture is more likely to produce false or unreliable information than verbal interrogation, as suspects are likely to lie to captors in order to end their pain. Also, pain tends to undermine a person’s ability to reason rationally, and so captives may disclose information that isn’t useful or even true. Very often, captured terrorists have been trained to expect torture or ill treatment, and so they’re likely to adopt an uncooperative attitude, even if pain is used repeatedly and for prolonged periods. BUT WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES TO TORTURE?
Posted on: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:32:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015