Would the use of Torture in U.S. War on Terror Be Considered as Terrorism

Post by: Chirusha de Mel

April 23, 2017

Would the use of Torture in U.S. War on Terror Be Considered as Terrorism?

Over the past several years many individuals have spoken about the failure and the ineffectiveness on the U.S. War on Terror. Surrounding the War on Terror the tactics which were used in order to defeat terrorism infringed upon human rights.  After the September 11^th attacks, the use of torture became a debatable global issue on whether it is justifiable on suspected terrorists. The term torture became an ambiguous definition, while turning the blind eye when it is convenient. Most Americans believe that the form of torture helps extract information from suspected terrorists in order to save millions of lives. However, I believe that the U.S. War on Terror used terroristic tactics which were/are morally wrong, impractical, and ineffective. Therefore, the torture used in the U.S. War on Terror should be viewed as terrorism.

Experts have said when people are tortured, the information is often falsified, usually the person undergoing torture does not have an ultimate goal in order to supply information. According to the Senate Report on CIA Torture the report studies shows time and time again that the use of torture was not effective in gaining useful information. The most useful information was found when non-CIA agencies asked detainees with non-coercive techniques. The CIA Report indicates that,

“Hassan Ghul provided extensive information on Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda operatives when questioned without coercive techniques by the CIA and did not provide more information after he was subjected to torture and cruel treatment. Others, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, provided false information after interrogation. After the program had ended, CIA Director John Brennan admitted, “We have not concluded that it was the use of EITs within that program that allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees subjected to them,” saying that whether "enhanced interrogation" was effective is “unknowable (Torture Was Ineffective).” 
        Using torture as a tactic to gain useful information for the national security could be considered as an option in specific circumstances. On the other hand, it is important to note that it will have an impact on the creditability of the U.S. in their promotion of law and order and human rights around the world. In addition, according to Terrorism and Civil Liberty, Michael Ignatieff argues, “may be that it is at times motivated not so much by a desire to extract vital information but by something baser, such as an urge to inflict pain, exact revenge, or even just for fun. That seems to have been part of the motivation of the Americans who abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib (Is Torture Ever Justified)”

         The danger of torturing suspected terrorists would be that American victims who are in the hands of other hostile countries could justify torturing Americans. It would be a moral dilemma to justify the actions of USA in torturing suspected terrorists while condemning other countries for committing the same acts.

Many Americans do not understand what it would be like for other hostile nations to take our people and use torture as a tactic in order to gain information. I understand that people see torture as reasonable because of the potential lives that can be saved. Evidently, however these tactics are ineffective and are simply inhumane. The U.S. War Terror should be conducted without using illegal and terroristic methods.

                                                      Work Cited

"Is Torture Ever Justified?" The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 22 Sept. 2007. Web. 23 Apr. 2017

"Torture Was Ineffective." Human Rights First. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2017.

Is the use of drones terrorism?

Christopher Bouchard

Professor Shirk

POL:357

4/23/2017

Is the use of drone’s terrorism?

            The use of drones has been a controversial topic the last couple of years.  Drones have been used increasingly in the past couple of years due to their tactical ability in the battlefield.  But many have scrutinized the use of drones by the United States calling them no better than the terrorists that they aim to combat with these drone strikes.  I argue that the use of drones by the United States is not terrorism though.

            The United States’ use of drones in combat is not terrorism.  For starters, we have discussed in class if it is possible for a state to commit terrorism.  And in most aspects, I believe that a state engaging in a war cannot commit terrorism.  The argument here by opposing countries and nations is that the use of drones is terrorism by the United States for several different reasons.  There is the reversal argument by nations and people alike that say that if America had drones constantly flying around the area either doing recon or surveillance or striking down enemies of the opposing state then we would classify it as terrorism and immediate demand the removal of them.  The very idea of this is thought provoking to make those in the United States consider themselves in other people’s shoes and to imagine what it’s like to see a drone in the air and not know what is going to happen next.  The very image of these drones in the air can cause fear and terror on those that see them.  Some would ask how is this not terrorism when the very sight of something can instill fear and terror into a population.  Another argument that opposition brings up is that these drone strikes kill hundreds of innocent civilians.  More than even regular air craft have in fact.  Now this is where the gray area of these drones comes into place.  When the operators of the drones try to track done the specific sim card of an individual than sometimes they end up killing who they think is their target but in realty their target has lent their phone to a friend of theirs or has swapped sim cards with another person.  And when you combine these two things how can it not be considered terrorism?

            That I argue is depends on the reason of use for force and the intentions of the use of these drones.  America would not even be in the middle east using these drones if it were not for the terrorist attacks that take place around the world and where these terrorists train their new recruits as well as carry out attacks.  So, in this aspect I do not see America as the aggressor in this war.  And this war on terror is exactly what needs to be combated to prevent even further innocent casualties.  I also would like to look at the intended use of the drones.  The intend use of these drones is not to instill fear and terror into hundreds, thousands, or millions of people.  But rather to eliminate enemy combatants on the battlefield from a strategic and tactical advantage.  Sometimes these operations go array for various reasons but terror and fear is not what the purpose of these attacks are supposed to cause, like the main purpose of terrorist attacks around the globe.  They also do not specifically target civilians.  Sometimes in these air strikes civilians do get caught in the crossfire and are unfortunately killed.  But the same could be said about airstrikes and artillery strikes through the ages. 

            While the use of these drones is a hot topic and they are, controversial I believe that America’s use of these drones cannot be considered terrorism in the traditional sense.  They might spread fear and terror but only to those in which the United States deems as their aggressors.        

States Terrorism: War on Terror

Divine Mugunga

Prof. Skirk

Global Terrorism

April 22, 2017

States Terrorism: War on Terror

            Terror does not have defining features but is merely a tactic that can be used by anyone to achieve a political goal, a terrorist is an individual who uses terror as a tactic, and finally terrorism is the use of that tactic (Tilly 2004 11-12). It is difficult to determine whether states can commit terrorist acts, because the international community has yet to established a universal definition for the term terrorism. Although there is not a single definition that is accepted by all, Tilly’s definition of terror, terrorist and terrorism works because it recognizes that every terrorist attack is unique. His definition focuses on the fact that terrorism is the use of terror as a strategy to achieve a political goal and thus whoever uses this tactic is a terrorist including state actors.

During the war on terror, the United States committed acts as means of counterterrorism. First, the National Security used complex analysis of electronic surveillance as the main method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes. This proved to be a very unreliable method because the agency used metadata analysis and cell phones to identify targets, and order strikes based on the activity and location of the cell phone that belong to the suspect. They were targeting phones and not actual people, which resulted in many deaths of innocent or unidentified people. Second, they torturing suspected (not yet proven guilty) people for information by a process of suffocation by water, which involves strapping the individual to a tilted board, with legs above their head, placing a cloth over their face, covering their nose and mouth. Water is then poured continuously over the cloth to prevent breathing, simulate drowning and induce panic. Third, they captured and transported suspects to other countries with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners.  Last but certainly not least, the presents of drones 24/7 alone terrorized the people, which gave rise to
psychological trauma among civilian
communities. They felt a constant worry
that a deadly strike may be fired at any
moment; they were powerless in protecting themselves.

Many people as we have seen in class do not believe that states can commit terrorist acts based on the states department definition of terrorism.  According to the state department, terrorism is politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (class notes 1/19). This definition includes three criteria’s that differentiate terrorism from other forms of violent acts. The first component of this definition is that terrorism is politically motivated, which excludes any other form of violence that furthers ones criminal or personal goal such as kidnapping for ransom, bank robbery and so on. Second, the violent act has to be perpetrated against “noncombatants”, who are people that don’t serve in the military nor military member who are not active. Therefore terrorism would be attacking civilians or anyone who is not ready to defend against political violence.  Finally, the last key component is that subnational groups or clandestine agents commit terrorist attacks. Meaning that subnational groups and clandestine agents are the only ones capable of committing terrorist attacks.

If we exclude the fact that a state actor committed these acts, there would be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the war on terror could be considered terrorism. Many defend and justify the strategies used in the war on terror because of the intent and reason behind the war, which was to stop terrorist organizations. As we have seen through out the course of this class, terrorist such as anarchist, John Brown and many more had a noble cause for their terrorist acts, but it doesn’t make them any less of a terrorist. It is difficult for people to label those they consider to be noble, or in this case a state trying to fight against terrorism and protect it citizens, a terrorist. But what makes an individual, organization or a state, a terrorist is merely the fact that they inflict terror and use violence against civilians to gain a political goal. Since the US did both of these things during the war on terror then they are considered terrorist.

References:

·       Tilly, C. (2004). Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists. Sociological Theory, 22(1), 5-13. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3648955

·       Stanford/NYU Report, Exec Summary, p.v-x.

Scahill, Jeremy, and Glenn Greenwald. “The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S.

·       Assassination Program.” https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/