Is the use of torture against terrorist suspects ever justified?

Jasmin Palmer
Final Project

Torture Against Terrorist Suspects

Torture on terrorists in governments began in the 1970's and was first used on prisoners of war. The U.S. government likes to call torture "enhanced interrogation techniques" when there is not much of a difference. President George Bush ordered to use these "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding on 9/11 suspects. However, in 2009 President Obama banned waterboarding as an interrogation technique. There are many different torture techniques that I learned about while researching for the group presentation. The historic forms include unorthodox methods such as getting crushed by elephants, pushed off cliffs, and upright torture. The more modern forms include solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, and beatings. While 59% of Americans think the CIA's treatment of suspected terrorists was justified, there are different positions people take while discussing torture. One position is the absolutist view, which is when torture is not proven to work and shouldn't be practiced. There is also torture under certain circumstances where torture may lead to information but other methods besides torture should be used. Many people believe saving lives has a higher value, and if the guilty terrorist is under torture and innocent lives were involved, torture is justified. The last position is torture warrants, where the President or General must have a warrant to torture. This happens if it is a "ticking bomb situation;" lives are endanger if the government doesn't get the information they need to shut the terrorist's threat down. There a couple ways as to how this topic of  torture against terrorist suspects is relevant in the American government and society. In the Fifth Amendment, it states that "No one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This used to apply only to U.S citizens, but is now to be for international people as well. It violates the Eighth Amendment because it is classified as cruel and unusual punishment and this only applies to U.S. citizens. The U.S. government likes to call "torture" an "advanced interrogation technique." However, there is not much of a difference between the two, it is just because there is no laws if it is legal or not and the name makes it justified for the U.S. As for citizens not government affiliated, some say that torture is justified because they deserve extra punishment for the death and misery they have caused. Others argue and say that it is ineffective and when people are tortured, information is falsified and the person who is being tortured just wants it to stop so they give answers, but they may not be accurate. I'm not sure if I think the use of torture against terrorist suspects is justified for the reason that it can be ineffective, but I also can argue myself with that and say they are getting the punishment they deserve for harming innocent people. I think my position on torture against terrorist suspects is the torture under certain circumstances because I don't believe that in every case torture should be used.

Video: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/obama-cia-torture-some-folks-brennan-spying

Sources: http://www.debate.org/torture/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after-911-attacks/2014/12/16/f6ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/legal-prohibition-against-torture#What

The Judiciary

Jasmin Palmer
Unit 4- The Judiciary
05.01.16

Chicago's Racist Cops and Courts

Summary: 

This article was about how in Chicago, racism doesn't just come from the cops, but also reaches throughout the court. The author of this article explains how they were once a court clerk for the prosecutor's office for Cook County and witnessed many despicable things while on the job. The author said that many of the officers would sit next to the judge and make comments on how "the black men were really 'dogs'." Prosecutors and judges also participated in this behavior by mocking defendant's "black sounding names" or tried to imitate their voices using "bastardized Ebonics." When anyone with black or brown skin came into court the judges/prosecutors would try to blame the defendant for their poverty. The author also stated that the judge that was training her never taught her about the Fourth Amendment or referred to the Constitution or criminal code. 

Analysis:

I thought that this article was a good pick to use for the Judiciary webpost because it didn't just explain what the courts are doing right, but it also explains that the courts are in the wrong in some areas such as criminal cases. Colored people are more likely to have criminal cases just because of the "bad neighborhoods" they live in or because they seem more suspicious to police officers while they're only just walking down the street. This article caught my eye because I am a person of color and just this article shows that colored people are still not treated equally even in courts as well with police officers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/opinion/chicagos-racist-cops-and-racist-courts.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FCourts%20and%20the%20Judiciary&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection&_r=0