Broken Link In The Torture Chain Analysis
The Potential Broken Link in the Torture Chain
An American political theorist, Michael Walzer wrote that “just like strategy, generals must understand morality, they must understand cruelty and take actions to avoid it.” While sound military strategy, following the September 11th attacks, successfully expelled Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power, failures in morality continue to hamper the global effort to eradicate terrorism. The torture of suspected terrorists at Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay represents the most significant failure of the Jus En Bello, or the just means of war, since the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, in 1968. And similar to the My Lai Massacre, the enhanced interrogation program fueled an ever growing …show more content…
Constitution undeniably guarantees the right of Habeas Corpus and every U.S. service member swears an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Article 1 is not where the legal conversation ends as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention against Torture, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and most specifically the Geneva Conventions all directly forbid the use of torture for any reason. Allowing a 34 year old lawyer to manipulate the law and steer the greatest military power into cruel and inhumane practices is an embarrassment at best and more accurately described as negligence of …show more content…
It would be naïve to believe that the nearly 1.5 million servicemen and women move in unison to the newest official or unofficial DOD policy. This is particularly true when it relates to conduct in war. The effectiveness in which senior officers control the culture of their unit more directly affects how their subordinates conduct themselves in battle or interrogations. Thus, it was not only the words of policy makers that allowed systematic torture in Iraq, Afghanistan or Cuba. Instead, it resulted from the commander who subtly looked the other way while interrogations escalated into torture. Or from someone who wanted revenge for 9/11 and found it in the interrogation room. Finally, it occurred because someone gave the order to “Gitmoize” Abu Graib. These are the links of the torture chain where senior officers could have taken control. This is where military professionals failed.
As professional military officers, we have the duty to uphold the highest standards of the Jus In Bello and sometimes that may be necessary in spite of policy makers in Washington. This responsibility resides with us because unlike those policy makers, we devote our lives to the protection and often times the taking of lives. Ethical leaders understand the enormity of this responsibility with which they are trusted. The taking of human life, more than any other action, injects a tangible sense of the
An American political theorist, Michael Walzer wrote that “just like strategy, generals must understand morality, they must understand cruelty and take actions to avoid it.” While sound military strategy, following the September 11th attacks, successfully expelled Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power, failures in morality continue to hamper the global effort to eradicate terrorism. The torture of suspected terrorists at Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay represents the most significant failure of the Jus En Bello, or the just means of war, since the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, in 1968. And similar to the My Lai Massacre, the enhanced interrogation program fueled an ever growing …show more content…
Constitution undeniably guarantees the right of Habeas Corpus and every U.S. service member swears an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Article 1 is not where the legal conversation ends as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention against Torture, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and most specifically the Geneva Conventions all directly forbid the use of torture for any reason. Allowing a 34 year old lawyer to manipulate the law and steer the greatest military power into cruel and inhumane practices is an embarrassment at best and more accurately described as negligence of …show more content…
It would be naïve to believe that the nearly 1.5 million servicemen and women move in unison to the newest official or unofficial DOD policy. This is particularly true when it relates to conduct in war. The effectiveness in which senior officers control the culture of their unit more directly affects how their subordinates conduct themselves in battle or interrogations. Thus, it was not only the words of policy makers that allowed systematic torture in Iraq, Afghanistan or Cuba. Instead, it resulted from the commander who subtly looked the other way while interrogations escalated into torture. Or from someone who wanted revenge for 9/11 and found it in the interrogation room. Finally, it occurred because someone gave the order to “Gitmoize” Abu Graib. These are the links of the torture chain where senior officers could have taken control. This is where military professionals failed.
As professional military officers, we have the duty to uphold the highest standards of the Jus In Bello and sometimes that may be necessary in spite of policy makers in Washington. This responsibility resides with us because unlike those policy makers, we devote our lives to the protection and often times the taking of lives. Ethical leaders understand the enormity of this responsibility with which they are trusted. The taking of human life, more than any other action, injects a tangible sense of the