This book asks whether just war theory and its rules for determining when war is justified remains adequate to the challenges posed by contemporary developments. Some argue that the nature of contemporary war makes these rules obsolete. By carefully examining the phenomena of intervention, terrorism, and torture from a number of different perspectives, the essays in this book explore this complex set of issues with insight and clarity.
This book considers the theoretical, policy and empirical arguments relevant to the debate concerning the legalisation of interrogational torture. Torturing Terrorists examines, as part of a consequentialist analysis, the nature and impact of torture and the implications of its legal regulation on individuals, institutions and wider society. In making an argument against the use of torture, the book engages in a wide ranging interdisciplinary analysis of the arguments and claims that are put forward by the proponents and opponents of legalised torture. This book examines the ticking bomb hypothetical and explains how the component parts of the hypothetical are expansively interpreted in theory and practice. It also considers the effectiveness of torture in producing ‘ticking bomb’ and ‘infrastructure’ intelligence and examines the use of interrogational torture and coercion by state officials in Northern Ireland, Algeria, Israel, and as part of the CIA’s ‘High Value Detainee’ interrogation programme. As part of an empirical slippery slope argument, this book examines the difficulties in drafting the text of a torture statute; the difficulties of controlling the use of interrogational torture and problems such a law could create for state officials and wider society. Finally, it critically evaluates suggestions that debating the legalisation of torture is dangerous and should be avoided. The book will be of interest to students and academics of criminology, law, sociology and philosophy, as well as the general reader.
This book seeks to demonstrate how rules not only guide a variety of practices within international politics but also contribute to the chaos and tension on the part of agents in light of the structures they sustain. Four central themes- practice, legitimacy, regulation, and responsibility- reflect different dimensions of a rule governed political order. The volume does not provide a single new set of rules for governing an increasingly chaotic international system. Instead, it provides reflections upon the way in which rules can and cannot deal with practices of violence. While many assume that "obeying the rules" will bring more peaceful outcomes, the chapters in this volume demonstrate that this may occur in some cases, but more often than not the very nature of a rule governed order will create tensions and stresses that require a constant attention to underlying political dynamics. This wide-ranging volume will be of great interest to students of International Law, International Security and IR theory.
We are understandably reluctant to "rank" moral atrocities. What is worse, genocide or terrorism? In this book, Thomas W. Simon argues that politicians use this to manipulate our sense of injustice by exaggerating terrorism and minimizing torture. He advocates for an international criminal code that encourages humanitarian intervention.
This collection by leading scholars represents state of the art writings on the ethics of war. Many of the most important and contested controversies in modern war receive comprehensive discussion: the practice of torture, terrorism, assassination and targeted killing, the bombing of civilians in war, humanitarian intervention, and the invasion of Iraq Analytical introduction provides a guide to recent developments in the ethics of war An excellent overview for general readers interested in the current debate and controversies over the ethics of war
Torture has been a topic of national discussion ever since it was revealed that “enhanced interrogation techniques” had been authorized as part of the war on terror. The United States and Torture provides us with a larger lens through which to view America's policy of torture, one that dissects America's long relationship with interrogation and torture, which roots back to the 1950s and has been applied, mostly in secret, to “enemies,” ever since. The United States and Torture opens with a compelling preface by Sister Dianna Ortiz, who describes the unimaginable treatment she endured in Guatemala in 1987 at the hands of the the Guatemalan government, which was supported by the United States. Following Ortiz's preface, an interdisciplinary panel of experts offers one of the most comprehensive examinations of torture to date, beginning with the Cold War era and ending with today's debate over accountability for torture.
Research Paper (undergraduate) from the year 2016 in the subject Politics - Region: USA, grade: 77.00%, University of Cape Town, course: Conflict in World Politics, language: English, abstract: The U.S.’s War on Terror has generated and continues to engender a great deal of international and domestic condemnation. This essay consequently analyses one of the most controversial and insidious repercussions of the ‘War on Terror’: the U.S.’s use of torture on terrorist suspects. Ultimately, this paper argues that torture as a counter-terrorism tactic was an ill-conceived act of desperation that violated human rights, damaged the U.S. government’s integrity and potentially increased terrorism. For this reason, the U.S.’s choice of torture is argued to be the basest of its mistakes in its War on Terror. Thus, this discussion focuses on the emergence of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, cases of torture at Guantanamo Bay, the indefensibility of torture and the irreconcilable consequences of state sponsored torture. To substantiate its main arguments, this analysis draws on the International Committee of the Red Cross Report On The Treatment Of Fourteen High Value Detainees In CIA Custody and reports from the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence.
Drawing on insights from political science, criminology, and sociology, Torture: An Interdisciplinary Approach investigates the nature and evolution of torture. By surveying the use of torture across time and space, this book considers the development of an international human rights discourse challenging the legitimacy of torture as an instrument of interrogation. Kathleen Barrett, George Klay Kieh, Jr., Gavin M. Lee, and Neema Noori critically assess the effectiveness of legal regimes, both national and international, that arose as a result of this discourse and the emergent global movement to ban the use of torture. In addition to grappling with colonial legacies of torture and the particular ways that great powers, whether liberal or illiberal, deploy these coercive practices, this book argues that torture continues to serve as a repressive practice that mediates the relationship between the state and its citizens in many countries within the global south. The authors demonstrate that as governments move away from one set of perceived atrocities, they develop new methods of torture and establish novel strategies for justifying these coercive practices.
The book addresses a dilemma at the heart of the 'War on Terror': is it ever justifiable to torture terrorists in order to save the lives of innocent civilians; the so-called 'ticking bomb' scenario?The book first analyzes the ticking bomb dilemma as a pure moral one, facing the individual would-be torturer. A 'never-say-never' utilitarian position is pitted against a 'minimal absolutist' view that some acts are never justifiable, and that torture is one such act.It then looks at the issues that arise once a state has decided to sanction torture in extreme situations: when, how, and whom to torture; the institutionalization of torture; its effects on society; and its efficacy in combatting terrorism in the shorter and longer runs.Four models of legalized torture are next examined-including current ones in Israel and the USA and the idea of torture warrants.Finally, related legal issues are analyzed; among them the lawfulness of coercive interrogation under international law and attempts to allow torture 'only' after the fact, for instance by applying the criminal law defence of necessity.A 'minimal absolutist' view - under which torture, whether by private individuals or by state officials, must be prohibited absolutely in law, policy and practice, and allowing no exceptions for ticking bomb situations - is defended throughout.
