ANALYSE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TORTURE IN THE ONGOING WAR ON TERROR.
According to both international and domestic law torture is illegal within most of the countries
across the globe. Torture representation has become a contested concept with the intense rate of
terror threats across the globe and States attempting to redefine torture. These has also created
more violations of human rights by governments that are set up to protect its citizens in the age of
fear of terror. Many political scientist has argued that member states has no right to torture others
even in the face of terror investigation so as to access information to protect larger amount of
citizens from terrorist attacks and regardless of war. Others argued that the information acquired
through torture is not necessarily enough or genuine to avert other attacks even after tampering
with victim mental state. Hence, all perpetrators of torture must be punished according to law of the
land and no matter the person in a democratic society. David Kennedy argued that there is a need
for the restructuring of humanitarianism in relation to war in Iraq and emancipatory engagement.
Furthermore, the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack which resulted in the death of over
2000 American citizens inevitably transformed the way the world in general view torture as a
necessary evil and have potential to prevent greater evil in the name of national security.
The international community has been promoting various projects that can avert torture in the view
of every citizen’s right to life and to also promote transparency and accountability in leadership and
governance. For example, united nations universal declaration on human rights, United Nations
committee against torture and United Nations Convention Against Torture. Such measures are
meant to prevent torture within the regions under their jurisdiction and discouragement of people
to be transported to any place where they might be tortured. The convention against torture was
ratified in the year 1984 (10 th of December) by 20th party states and adopted by United Nations
General Assembly, it later came to into force on 26 of June 1987. Article 1 of the convention gave its
definition of Torture while Article 2 maintained its say on ban on torture. On the contrary, evidence
would suggest that various atrocities including torture by the United States of America on terror
detainees in the case of Guantanamo is unlawful and against common article 4 of Geneva
convention. Arguably, in the year 2004, Britain’s court of appeal ruled that information acquired
from terrorist by torture can be utilised as evidence in the court of law but was later terminated by
the House of Lords (The Economists, 2007). This essay aims to explore the justification for engaging
in torture by governments, the ticking bomb scenario, and deterrent factor presented by the
perpetrators.
The United Nations is an international institution which team up with its membership so as to
address various common issues, administer mutual obligation and ensure international order. As
part of United Nations agenda for maintaining international human rights, various global
instruments on human rights was created. This includes human rights in the administration of justice
protection of persons subjected to detention or imprisonment. Furthermore, the United Nations
created committee Against Torture (CAT) for the supervision of the convention against torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by its member states (Ohchr, 2017).
This committee comprises of various self-governing specialists to monitor the functioning of the
conventions against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
(Ohchr, 2017). All parties engaged with the international convention against torture and other cruel ,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are obliged to present to the committee against
torture (CAT) their individual states report at each four years (Haas, 2008).
, As seen in the United Nations treaty system diagram above, each report received is then examined
by the committee and its recommendation and concerns forwarded in a structure of concluding
observations to the state party (Haas, 2008). For Example, Finland recurrent report was examined by
the committee in the year 2005, reconsidering such concerns as procedures of asylum, procedures
of deportation, condition of prison, nursing of mental victims, and preventive detention. It also
includes brutality against women, hence presenting broad net across traditions in which techniques
of torture may perhaps be admitted (Haas, 2008)
The Committee Against Torture (CAT) reacted upon the United States report, which had since been
outstanding within the year 2001 but was rather presented in the year 2005, along with various
denigration regarding torture dispensed through American personnel at services within Iraq,
Guantanamo, Cuba and Abu Ghraib (Haas, 2008). The Committee Against Torture (CAT) suggested
that “psychological torture” ought to be classified as every type of mental distress, order of closure
to secret facilities detention, an end to Guantanamo imprisonment, and every one found
participating in torture must be put on trial as stated by the law of United States of America (Haas,
2008). The Committee Against Torture (CAT) has basically made one general remark so as to make
clear the processes for overseeing complains. The Committee Against Torture (CAT) can also operate
on interstate protest or inquiries and communication by individuals, for as long as such state has not
chosen not to participate or exited from the Article 22 complaint modus operandi.
As at May 2004, the Committee Against Torture (CAT) obtained two hundred and fifty-nine
interactions concerning no less than nineteen different countries (Haas, 2008). Contraventions were
basically adjudicated in twenty-nine instances, seventy-three turned out to be declarations of views
upon the subject with no violations being cited, fifty-nine were basically terminated, forty-six were
disqualified, others were simply pending (Haas, 2008). The Committee Against Torture (CAT) also
made investigation regarding various concerns in Uganda in the year 2005, as well as information
about mob violence and prison brutality towards suspected crimes perpetrators (Haas, 2008).
According to both international and domestic law torture is illegal within most of the countries
across the globe. Torture representation has become a contested concept with the intense rate of
terror threats across the globe and States attempting to redefine torture. These has also created
more violations of human rights by governments that are set up to protect its citizens in the age of
fear of terror. Many political scientist has argued that member states has no right to torture others
even in the face of terror investigation so as to access information to protect larger amount of
citizens from terrorist attacks and regardless of war. Others argued that the information acquired
through torture is not necessarily enough or genuine to avert other attacks even after tampering
with victim mental state. Hence, all perpetrators of torture must be punished according to law of the
land and no matter the person in a democratic society. David Kennedy argued that there is a need
for the restructuring of humanitarianism in relation to war in Iraq and emancipatory engagement.
Furthermore, the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack which resulted in the death of over
2000 American citizens inevitably transformed the way the world in general view torture as a
necessary evil and have potential to prevent greater evil in the name of national security.
The international community has been promoting various projects that can avert torture in the view
of every citizen’s right to life and to also promote transparency and accountability in leadership and
governance. For example, united nations universal declaration on human rights, United Nations
committee against torture and United Nations Convention Against Torture. Such measures are
meant to prevent torture within the regions under their jurisdiction and discouragement of people
to be transported to any place where they might be tortured. The convention against torture was
ratified in the year 1984 (10 th of December) by 20th party states and adopted by United Nations
General Assembly, it later came to into force on 26 of June 1987. Article 1 of the convention gave its
definition of Torture while Article 2 maintained its say on ban on torture. On the contrary, evidence
would suggest that various atrocities including torture by the United States of America on terror
detainees in the case of Guantanamo is unlawful and against common article 4 of Geneva
convention. Arguably, in the year 2004, Britain’s court of appeal ruled that information acquired
from terrorist by torture can be utilised as evidence in the court of law but was later terminated by
the House of Lords (The Economists, 2007). This essay aims to explore the justification for engaging
in torture by governments, the ticking bomb scenario, and deterrent factor presented by the
perpetrators.
The United Nations is an international institution which team up with its membership so as to
address various common issues, administer mutual obligation and ensure international order. As
part of United Nations agenda for maintaining international human rights, various global
instruments on human rights was created. This includes human rights in the administration of justice
protection of persons subjected to detention or imprisonment. Furthermore, the United Nations
created committee Against Torture (CAT) for the supervision of the convention against torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by its member states (Ohchr, 2017).
This committee comprises of various self-governing specialists to monitor the functioning of the
conventions against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
(Ohchr, 2017). All parties engaged with the international convention against torture and other cruel ,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are obliged to present to the committee against
torture (CAT) their individual states report at each four years (Haas, 2008).
, As seen in the United Nations treaty system diagram above, each report received is then examined
by the committee and its recommendation and concerns forwarded in a structure of concluding
observations to the state party (Haas, 2008). For Example, Finland recurrent report was examined by
the committee in the year 2005, reconsidering such concerns as procedures of asylum, procedures
of deportation, condition of prison, nursing of mental victims, and preventive detention. It also
includes brutality against women, hence presenting broad net across traditions in which techniques
of torture may perhaps be admitted (Haas, 2008)
The Committee Against Torture (CAT) reacted upon the United States report, which had since been
outstanding within the year 2001 but was rather presented in the year 2005, along with various
denigration regarding torture dispensed through American personnel at services within Iraq,
Guantanamo, Cuba and Abu Ghraib (Haas, 2008). The Committee Against Torture (CAT) suggested
that “psychological torture” ought to be classified as every type of mental distress, order of closure
to secret facilities detention, an end to Guantanamo imprisonment, and every one found
participating in torture must be put on trial as stated by the law of United States of America (Haas,
2008). The Committee Against Torture (CAT) has basically made one general remark so as to make
clear the processes for overseeing complains. The Committee Against Torture (CAT) can also operate
on interstate protest or inquiries and communication by individuals, for as long as such state has not
chosen not to participate or exited from the Article 22 complaint modus operandi.
As at May 2004, the Committee Against Torture (CAT) obtained two hundred and fifty-nine
interactions concerning no less than nineteen different countries (Haas, 2008). Contraventions were
basically adjudicated in twenty-nine instances, seventy-three turned out to be declarations of views
upon the subject with no violations being cited, fifty-nine were basically terminated, forty-six were
disqualified, others were simply pending (Haas, 2008). The Committee Against Torture (CAT) also
made investigation regarding various concerns in Uganda in the year 2005, as well as information
about mob violence and prison brutality towards suspected crimes perpetrators (Haas, 2008).
