euclid guidelines for academic...

Student Name DIP-606 Master’s Thesis

<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)


1) DEDICATION

<OPTIONAL: Centered with no indent. If you do not include a Dedication, delete

the entire page including the page break below>


< 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 >


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.>


3) ABSTRACT

<OPTIONAL: If Abstract page is not used, delete the entire page, including the

following page break.>


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


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

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/24920.pdf


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.


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.


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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/holder-waterboardig-is-t_n_158149.html


http://www.thegaurdian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights


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

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-imperative-of-moral-arguments-against-torture/


http://www.thegaurdian.com/us-news/2014/cia-torture-methods-waterboarding-sleep-deprivation

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11283082/Does-the-use-of-torture-ever-work.html



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.

http://ww.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-imperative-of-moral-argument-against-torture/












a) Sub-theme 2A











interrogation.17






b) Sub-theme 2B





















c) Sub-theme 2C




torture.





















a) Sub-theme 3A











interrogation.26






b) Sub-theme 3B





















c) Sub-theme 3C




torture.












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.


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.


7) WORKS CITED / BIBLIOGRAPHY

<You may the Microsoft Work management or Zotero to generate this section.>


8) APPENDICES

<OPTIONAL: If you do not include this section, delete the entire page including the

page break below>

euclid guidelines for academic...

Documents