Right to Life
The media source claims that CIA interrogators used illegal means to get information out of an al Qaeda prisoner. The report from the executive director of the ACLU stated that these means used were reprehensible and illegal As claimed by the author there have been several other cases in which the CIA have tries to scare prisoners into spilling out information by firing gun shots in a near by room to show that the other was being fired upon. The article also states that several cases of such misconduct have been taken up by the Department of Justice of which only one person was prosecuted. The point the article is trying to make is whether it is justified to use methods like scaring prisoners with guns and drills to get information out of them or is it necessary to do so.
I feel it is justified to perform such acts of people to get information, provided they have been convicted with evidence. Ethical and moral rights do not play a role here. If the interrogators would not create an atmosphere of fear into such prisoners, they would think that they are untouchable. The al Qaeda is a terrorist group, which has terrorized the world with their bombs and mass murder. I feel it is justified that they themselves face what the general public have faced when someone they know have been killed or injured because of the al Qaeda. The media clearly shows that it does not like the behavior of the CIA towards its prisoners, but it is also not looking at who the prisoner is. If the prisoner was falsely accused and the CIA guards were just getting pleasure out of someone else’s misery, then the CIA is wrong. However there is evidence that the prisoner who is being accused is from the al Qaeda. The al Qaeda are trained not to leak information otherwise all those who had been captured would have leaked out information, therefore the CIA were trying another tactic to get information- if words do not work, use fear.
The higher authority in the CIA was angry as hell when information of such acts reached them. They were thinking on the basis of logic rather than letting their emotions get in the way. However I feel that the higher people who got ‘angry’ were merely doing it to prevent humanitarians from protesting against them, since the information was leaking on the news.
This leak of information about the CIA will cause havoc in the department. The media themselves are not the ‘good people’. This article is biased towards the faction that claims the interrogation method to be unjustified. Had the media not intervened in the CIA’s private prisons, havoc might not be caused in the department. The media take a lot of matters into its hand without thinking about the consequences. Not only that but also they influence those who read their articles to think in a certain way. This shows the fact that if the media feel someone in the situation is wrong; they are wrong only giving selective evidence to support its claim.
I feel those who commit crime for the wrong reasons and are free to roam about and do the same thing again should not be dealt with ease. It is only through instilling fear in the world of terrorist that they in the future that they may think many times before they bomb another city. The information leaked by the media is a world wide phenomena that even the terrorist are looking at. They know now that such acts of scaring their captured people is just a show and they will never be killed in prison. The media have prevented the CIA from getting information out of the prisoner. However this will also affect future prisoners, as they will know what to expect in the prisons of the CIA.
In conclusion I would like to say that if the CIA are in fact treating all of its prisoners in such a manner, I will not support its behavior. The term every human should have human rights can be looked at in two different ways here. If the CIA give the prisoner his human rights, they would be taking it away from those people who will be bombed by the al Qaeda in the future. However if they take his human rights away they, would be saving millions of people human right. No one can make the right decision here because both are correct. However a better decision can be made from the two. I feel it is the latter one.
"This article is biased towards the faction that claims the interrogation method to be unjustified".
ReplyDeleteHow can you say that they are being biased towards the interrogation method being unjustified? This article is mainly stating facts, it is quoting people from both sides and not once has the reporter stated his own opinion. In fact we are given balanced information as the purpose of this article seems to be to inform us of the occurences.
I think the knowledge issue of this article is much more than the use of drills and guns to scare the terrorists. It is about the use of unethical means to scare terrorists. Interrogators in the USA have become so scared for another attack like 9-11 that they are acting ruthless. The knowledge issue is that. And nowhere in the article is the writer stating his opinion. He is quoting the opinions of others. I agree with Astha when she says that the article is a factual article. Hence you cannot term it as biased as there is no personal view involved.
ReplyDelete"The higher authority in the CIA was angry as hell when information of such acts reached them. They were thinking on the basis of logic rather than letting their emotions get in the way. However I feel that the higher people who got ‘angry’ were merely doing it to prevent humanitarians from protesting against them, since the information was leaking on the news."
ReplyDeletei completely agree with this because the atircle itself says that people resigned posts as interrogators to prevent prosecution for their 'interrogatory methods'. People all over the world have heard about Guantanamo Bay and the apparent torture going on within those walls, but the truth is that no body of a high post can ever admit that they agree to these methods. USA already supposts capital punishment in various countries and has a very large child rights crisis when it comes to child labour. Being a superpower, its reputation and policies are often brought up in the UN and hence it can not afford to openly proclaim its policies of torture. But there stories spred so there has to be an element of truth in them. SOmebody who as suffered is talking, but bein the head of the CIA or the President of the strongest country in the world, one can not admit that they do not respect the rights of men who might just have possible terrorist links.can not openly violate the most fundamental rights of its own civilians, and often people from other countries.