Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 1
<TITLE OF THESIS, DISSERTATION OR REPORT, DOUBLE SPACED
AND CENTERED, ALL UPPERCASE, INVERTEDPYRAMID FORM>
<STUDENT’S FULL OFFICIAL NAME, ALL UPPERCASE>
Name of Approving Faculty Member
For Approval
Student Name:Student Country:Program:Course Code or Name: DIP-606 (or other)Professor /Assigned Tutor:
This document uses ☒ US or ☐ UK English (for spelling, punctuation rules and formatting of references). The European Commission style ☐ may also be used.
Note: This document is in US letter (“8.5”x11”” format)
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 2
1) DEDICATION
<OPTIONAL: Centered with no indent. If you do not include a Dedication, delete
the entire page including the page break below>
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 3
< TITLE GOES HERE IN ALL CAPS AND CENTERED NEXT LINE SHORTER
THAN LINE ABOVE >
by
< YOUR NAME HERE IN CAPS><PREVIOUS DEGREE ABBREVIATED, Granting Institution, Year awarded><PREVIOUS DEGREE ABBREVIATED, Granting Institution, Year awarded >
Presented to the Faculty of EUCLID (Euclid University)School of [Name of School]
in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements
for the Degree of
<DEGREE NAME HERE>
EUCLID | AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL UNIVERSITYSCHOOL OF [NAME]
www.euclid.int<Select one: Month, Numeric Year >
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 4
2) ACKNOWLEDGMENT
<OPTIONAL: If Acknowledgements page is not used, delete the entire page,
including the following page break. Do not delete the section break at the end of the
previous page (the title page). It is needed to initiate page numbering.>
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 5
3) ABSTRACT
<OPTIONAL: If Abstract page is not used, delete the entire page, including the
following page break.>
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 6
4) TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Dedication.............................................................................................................22) Acknowledgment..................................................................................................43) Abstract.................................................................................................................54) Table of Contents..................................................................................................61) Introduction...........................................................................................................72) Methodology.........................................................................................................83) Main Study / Theme 1.........................................................................................10
a) Sub-theme 1A..................................................................................................10b) Sub-theme 1B..................................................................................................11c) Sub-theme 1C..................................................................................................12
4) Main Study / Theme 2.........................................................................................13a) Sub-theme 2A..................................................................................................13b) Sub-theme 2B..................................................................................................14c) Sub-theme 2C..................................................................................................15
5) Main Study / Theme 3.........................................................................................16a) Sub-theme 3A..................................................................................................16b) Sub-theme 3B..................................................................................................17c) Sub-theme 3C..................................................................................................18
6) Conclusion and Recommendations.....................................................................197) Works Cited / Bibliography................................................................................218) Appendices..........................................................................................................22
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 7
1) INTRODUCTION
International law abhors and expressly puts a ban on torture and any form of
inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment.1 It is an absolute right and non-derogable
even in time of emergency or war. Despite its total ban, various forms of torture have
been authorized and used by certain individuals, groups and even states. The problem
with torture resurfaced recently when most countries intensified their efforts at early
detection of threats of terror. Also the treatment melted to prisoners of Iraq war and
detainees in US controlled Guantanamo Bay has again brought many questions as to its
legality or justification. While some argue that torture is necessary, others are of the view
that at no point should torture be justified.
Notwithstanding the validity of the points made by both sides, it is still difficult to
agree that the use of torture has made meaningful and consistent contribution to the
current fight against terrorism. To avoid being accused of leaping into conclusion, this
paper will examine the meaning of torture, the reasons adduced by proponents and those
who are opposed to its use. It will further analyze these divided opinions with a view to
agreeing on which side pulls more weight or generally acceptable. Finally, this paper will
posit that the use of torture though as old as man; it is inhuman, morally unjustifiable and
may completely erode the confidence of the people in the criminal justice system.
1 Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth McArthur, UN Convention Against Torture – A Commentary , http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/24920.pdf retrieved on July 12, 2015
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 8
2) METHODOLOGY
The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary defined torture as an act intentionally
meant to hurt someone physically or mentally in order to punish them or make them tell
you something.2 Certain international conventions and organizations have also defined
torture. According to Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture
otherwise referred to as CAT, torture is defined as follows:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession,
punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third
person…3
International organizations such as Amnesty International also defined torture to
mean an act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain and possibly
injury to an organism, usually to one who is physically restrained or otherwise under the
torturer’s control or custody and unable to defend against what is being done to him or
her.
These definitions points to the fact that torture irrespective of how it is committed
causes physical or psychological pain to the victim. It is also clear that torture is induced
by a third party against another to forcefully receive information or meant to compel a 2 Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, OUP Oxford, 8th Revised Edition, (18 March, 2010)3 Michael John Garcia, “U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to Interrogations Techniques”, Congressional Research Service, (Jan. 26, 2009). 2.
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 9
suspect to admit certain facts4. While some believe that torture is necessary against
certain persons, others believed that at no time should someone be tortured even in times
of emergency.
4 Ibid, 3.
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 10
3) MAIN STUDY / THEME 1
In the last few decades it has been a difficult moment for the human rights regime
when some States began to adopt certain policies that are coercive in nature and
consistent with acts of torture.5 In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the United States,
interrogatory techniques such as waterboarding were adopted and used at various camps
to coercively elicit information from suspected terrorists; a technique which has received
condemnation from a wild range of the public.6 In many other situations, State forces
have also adopted other various forceful means of soliciting confessional statements from
suspects either at military camps or at police stations.
a) Sub-theme 1A
Proponents have hinged their justification on various reasons ranging from the belief
that torture can save innocent lives; produce valuable and reliable information; ethical in
certain situations when at war and that international law does not protect terrorists. They
have also argued that torture is not a form of punishment but a measure to protect
5 Eric Posner, The Case Against Human Rights, (The Guardian, Dec. 4, 2014), http://www.thegaurdian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights, Retrieved July 04, 2015.6 Same Stein, Holder: Waterboarding Is Torture, And the President Can’t Torture, (Huff Post Politics, Jan. 2, 2009). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/holder-waterboardig-is-t_n_158149.html . Retrieved July 02, 2015
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 11
innocent civilians.7 Proponents have described torture as an advance method of legal
interrogation.8
Proponents further argued that maniacs who kill with careless abandon have by their
very act stripped themselves of all known rights including the rights not to be subjected
to inhuman or degrading treatment. It is the belief of the proponents that torture is the
only means that could be used to extract vital information from persons who have no
respect for the lives of others.
b) Sub-theme 1B
Opponents have adduced reasons to show why it should not be allowed or justified.
They have argued that international law does not support it, rather its use violates and
weakens international law; that the use of torture is always wrong, the ticking time bomb
theory notwithstanding; torture erodes the character and values of a nation;9 torture is
banned by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN
Convention Against Torture. Specifically, they argued that the number of treaties that
outlaw the use of torture lend credence to its rejection. For example, Article 3:1(a) of the
Geneva Conventions restricts the use of “violence to life and person, in particular murder
of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” while the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights provides that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to
7 Colin Freeman, Does The Use of Torture Ever Work? (The Telegraph, Dec. 9, 2014). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11283082/Does-the-use-of-torture-ever-work.html. Retrieved July 02, 2015.8 Oliver Laughland, How the CIA Tortured its Detainees, (The Guardian, Wed. 20, 2015). http://www.thegaurdian.com/us-news/2014/cia-torture-methods-waterboarding-sleep-deprivation. Retrieved July 02, 2015.9 Kelly Thomas, The Imperative of Moral Argument Against Torture, (The American Conservative, May 27, 2015). http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-imperative-of-moral-arguments-against-torture/. Retrieved July 04, 2015
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 12
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”10 In the same vein, the United
Nations Convention Against Torture and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court expressly prohibits the use of torture.
c) Sub-theme 1C
Opponents further argued that the use of torture even in times of war puts the
country’s troops in more risks of being tortured and possibly killed when captured. They
argued that humane methods of interrogation are better at obtaining information than
torture.
The use of torture has also been opposed on the ground that the information given by
a survivor is not reliable.11 Often the information is given because of the need to avoid
more excruciating pains suffered by the victim not necessarily because the information
are vital to forestalling another immediate or future attack.12 In any case information
procured under duress is never reliable and most times are not admissible under the law.
Another strong point put forward by those opposed to the use of torture is that it is
morally reprehensible and that torture defiles all the dignities inherent in a man.13
10 Article 5, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. 11 Mark Costanzo and Ellen Gerrity, The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate, (Social Issues and Policy Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2000 179-201)12 Ibid, 181.13 Kelly Thomas, The Imperative of Moral Argument Against Torture, (The American Conservative, May 27, 2017). http://ww.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-imperative-of-moral-argument-against-torture/. Retrieved July 04, 2015.
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 13
4) MAIN STUDY / THEME 2
In the last few decades it has been a difficult moment for the human rights regime
when some States began to adopt certain policies that are coercive in nature and
consistent with acts of torture.14 In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the United States,
interrogatory techniques such as waterboarding were adopted and used at various camps
to coercively elicit information from suspected terrorists; a technique which has received
condemnation from a wild range of the public.15 In many other situations, State forces
have also adopted other various forceful means of soliciting confessional statements from
suspects either at military camps or at police stations.
a) Sub-theme 2A
Proponents have hinged their justification on various reasons ranging from the belief
that torture can save innocent lives; produce valuable and reliable information; ethical in
certain situations when at war and that international law does not protect terrorists. They
have also argued that torture is not a form of punishment but a measure to protect
14 Eric Posner, The Case Against Human Rights, (The Guardian, Dec. 4, 2014), http://www.thegaurdian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights, Retrieved July 04, 2015.15 Same Stein, Holder: Waterboarding Is Torture, And the President Can’t Torture, (Huff Post Politics, Jan. 2, 2009). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/holder-waterboardig-is-t_n_158149.html . Retrieved July 02, 2015
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 14
innocent civilians.16 Proponents have described torture as an advance method of legal
interrogation.17
Proponents further argued that maniacs who kill with careless abandon have by their
very act stripped themselves of all known rights including the rights not to be subjected
to inhuman or degrading treatment. It is the belief of the proponents that torture is the
only means that could be used to extract vital information from persons who have no
respect for the lives of others.
b) Sub-theme 2B
Opponents have adduced reasons to show why it should not be allowed or justified.
They have argued that international law does not support it, rather its use violates and
weakens international law; that the use of torture is always wrong, the ticking time bomb
theory notwithstanding; torture erodes the character and values of a nation;18 torture is
banned by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN
Convention Against Torture. Specifically, they argued that the number of treaties that
outlaw the use of torture lend credence to its rejection. For example, Article 3:1(a) of the
Geneva Conventions restricts the use of “violence to life and person, in particular murder
of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” while the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights provides that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to
16 Colin Freeman, Does The Use of Torture Ever Work? (The Telegraph, Dec. 9, 2014). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11283082/Does-the-use-of-torture-ever-work.html. Retrieved July 02, 2015.17 Oliver Laughland, How the CIA Tortured its Detainees, (The Guardian, Wed. 20, 2015). http://www.thegaurdian.com/us-news/2014/cia-torture-methods-waterboarding-sleep-deprivation. Retrieved July 02, 2015.18 Kelly Thomas, The Imperative of Moral Argument Against Torture, (The American Conservative, May 27, 2015). http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-imperative-of-moral-arguments-against-torture/. Retrieved July 04, 2015
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 15
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”19 In the same vein, the United
Nations Convention Against Torture and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court expressly prohibits the use of torture.
c) Sub-theme 2C
Opponents further argued that the use of torture even in times of war puts the
country’s troops in more risks of being tortured and possibly killed when captured. They
argued that humane methods of interrogation are better at obtaining information than
torture.
The use of torture has also been opposed on the ground that the information given by
a survivor is not reliable.20 Often the information is given because of the need to avoid
more excruciating pains suffered by the victim not necessarily because the information
are vital to forestalling another immediate or future attack.21 In any case information
procured under duress is never reliable and most times are not admissible under the law.
Another strong point put forward by those opposed to the use of torture is that it is
morally reprehensible and that torture defiles all the dignities inherent in a man.22
19 Article 5, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. 20 Mark Costanzo and Ellen Gerrity, The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate, (Social Issues and Policy Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2000 179-201)21 Ibid, 181.22 Kelly Thomas, The Imperative of Moral Argument Against Torture, (The American Conservative, May 27, 2017). http://ww.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-imperative-of-moral-argument-against-torture/. Retrieved July 04, 2015.
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 16
5) MAIN STUDY / THEME 3
In the last few decades it has been a difficult moment for the human rights regime
when some States began to adopt certain policies that are coercive in nature and
consistent with acts of torture.23 In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the United States,
interrogatory techniques such as waterboarding were adopted and used at various camps
to coercively elicit information from suspected terrorists; a technique which has received
condemnation from a wild range of the public.24 In many other situations, State forces
have also adopted other various forceful means of soliciting confessional statements from
suspects either at military camps or at police stations.
a) Sub-theme 3A
Proponents have hinged their justification on various reasons ranging from the belief
that torture can save innocent lives; produce valuable and reliable information; ethical in
certain situations when at war and that international law does not protect terrorists. They
have also argued that torture is not a form of punishment but a measure to protect
23 Eric Posner, The Case Against Human Rights, (The Guardian, Dec. 4, 2014), http://www.thegaurdian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights, Retrieved July 04, 2015.24 Same Stein, Holder: Waterboarding Is Torture, And the President Can’t Torture, (Huff Post Politics, Jan. 2, 2009). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/holder-waterboardig-is-t_n_158149.html . Retrieved July 02, 2015
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 17
innocent civilians.25 Proponents have described torture as an advance method of legal
interrogation.26
Proponents further argued that maniacs who kill with careless abandon have by their
very act stripped themselves of all known rights including the rights not to be subjected
to inhuman or degrading treatment. It is the belief of the proponents that torture is the
only means that could be used to extract vital information from persons who have no
respect for the lives of others.
b) Sub-theme 3B
Opponents have adduced reasons to show why it should not be allowed or justified.
They have argued that international law does not support it, rather its use violates and
weakens international law; that the use of torture is always wrong, the ticking time bomb
theory notwithstanding; torture erodes the character and values of a nation;27 torture is
banned by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN
Convention Against Torture. Specifically, they argued that the number of treaties that
outlaw the use of torture lend credence to its rejection. For example, Article 3:1(a) of the
Geneva Conventions restricts the use of “violence to life and person, in particular murder
of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” while the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights provides that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to
25 Colin Freeman, Does The Use of Torture Ever Work? (The Telegraph, Dec. 9, 2014). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11283082/Does-the-use-of-torture-ever-work.html. Retrieved July 02, 2015.26 Oliver Laughland, How the CIA Tortured its Detainees, (The Guardian, Wed. 20, 2015). http://www.thegaurdian.com/us-news/2014/cia-torture-methods-waterboarding-sleep-deprivation. Retrieved July 02, 2015.27 Kelly Thomas, The Imperative of Moral Argument Against Torture, (The American Conservative, May 27, 2015). http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-imperative-of-moral-arguments-against-torture/. Retrieved July 04, 2015
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 18
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”28 In the same vein, the United
Nations Convention Against Torture and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court expressly prohibits the use of torture.
c) Sub-theme 3C
Opponents further argued that the use of torture even in times of war puts the
country’s troops in more risks of being tortured and possibly killed when captured. They
argued that humane methods of interrogation are better at obtaining information than
torture.
The use of torture has also been opposed on the ground that the information given by
a survivor is not reliable.29 Often the information is given because of the need to avoid
more excruciating pains suffered by the victim not necessarily because the information
are vital to forestalling another immediate or future attack.30 In any case information
procured under duress is never reliable and most times are not admissible under the law.
Another strong point put forward by those opposed to the use of torture is that it is
morally reprehensible and that torture defiles all the dignities inherent in a man.31
28 Article 5, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. 29 Mark Costanzo and Ellen Gerrity, The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate, (Social Issues and Policy Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2000 179-201)30 Ibid, 181.31 Kelly Thomas, The Imperative of Moral Argument Against Torture, (The American Conservative, May 27, 2017). http://ww.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-imperative-of-moral-argument-against-torture/. Retrieved July 04, 2015.
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 19
6) CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Across the world various forms of torture have been used either by government
forces to secure information from suspects and some non-state actors fighting for
religious reasons. The change of policy in terms of security operations of the United
States government after the 9/11 attack and its operations in Guantanamo Bay and other
detention facilities has produced a fierce debate about the justifiability of the use of
torture. Several attempts by United States to redefine torture in a more restrictive sense
did not appeal to opponents neither did it add much value to the debate.
Torture is against the dignity of a person.32 Under international law, the Geneva
Conventions, the United Nations Convention Agonist Torture and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights put a complete ban on torture. These conventions
have made right to freedom from torture, inhumane and degrading forms of punishment
an absolute right. In other words, it is an absolute right that has no limitations or clog
backs clauses as in right to freedom of movement and freedom of assembly. What this
means is that torture is not permitted even in times of war or other emergencies. No
matter how potent and convincing that the current war against terrorism has supported the
doctrine of the ‘ticking time bomb’ as a justification for torture, it still does not diminish
the fact that it touches on the psych and mental state of the person being subjected to acts
of torture. Besides, the United States attempt to redefine torture in a more restrictive
32 Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth MacArthur, The Distinction Between Torture and Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment, (Torture Volume, No.3 2006), 147.
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 20
sense while trying to distinguish it from other forms of inhuman and degrading
punishment are just mere equivocations. Such attempts are only diversionary and does
not diminish or change the dehumanization associated with acts of torture.
Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis Page 21
7) WORKS CITED / BIBLIOGRAPHY
<You may the Microsoft Work management or Zotero to generate this section.>