Is the American torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay justifiable?
The
Geneva Convention of 1949 (drafted for the Protection of Prisoners of War in reaction to the horrific events of WWII) explicitly prohibits torture or otherwise cruel and inhumane treatment during war. What America does, however, is that they do not call it a "war". For the legal implications of the signing of this convention to come into play, it must be officially labeled a war (this also comes into play in regards to genocide; but that's a whole other issue) so America calls it a "conflict". By doing this, it enables them to completely go against anything the convention says. There is no-one to follow them up or to condemn them. The prisoners of these places are caught in a cruel legal loophole. Seeing as we have no international courts America cannot be tried for these war crimes. So, on legal terms, this torture can be completely justified.
But on a moral stance, torture, in my opinion, can never be justified. As you may have gathered from my previous post, I agree in people being pronounced innocent before guilty, and fair justice for all. Of course this is not happening. It is much worse at Guantanamo Bay, where it is very hard for the conditions to be monitored by an unbiased outside source. The majority of the people there have no recourse for the acts allegedly committed against them and/or have no hope of getting out of there because their governments are powerless to help. We don't even know many of their names. They are also being held there due to a loophole in the law that America is taking advantage of; because Guantanamo Bay is not on American soil they do not have to follow American laws (it is illegal to detain people without charge and outside contact) but because it is OWNED by America they are able to use the land freely. No-one is allowed on to see what's going on or to rescue people; America can do what they want there and we are powerless to stop. We can't even protect our own David Hicks.
Abu Ghraib on the other hand has been under such intense media scrutiny that some recourse for action has been taken. The images made public by 60 Minutes in 2004 - such as those of a naked prisoner lying on the floor with a leash around his neck, a hooded prisoner standing on a box with wires attached to his hands and genitals, and naked prisoners forced to simulate acts of sexual intercourse —became infamous throughout the world. This thankfully led to demands for an accounting of the treatment of prisoners captured during the "war" on terror. Thus the exploration of the legal and moral implications of the use of "extreme interrogation techniques" (that being torture) came under scrutiny. These "techniques" were used at a number of U.S military bases such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in particular.
Today, only a few people involved in the torture at Abu Ghraib have been charged; the majority of them being low-ranking officials. No senior officials that were responsible for setting a policy that led to torture have been reprimanded. In an attempt to diminish political embarrassment over the issue Bush made statements that his administration did not "condone torture" and that the abuses were a result of a "few bad apples"
What kind of example is this setting? That torture can be justified by legal loopholes; that morals can be ignored? That if and only if morals come into question that they can be passed off by blaming certain individuals and shifting the blame away from the real root issue at hand?
I don't know what kind of world we're creating for ourselves.