Understanding Torture Analysis

Words: 1184
Pages: 5

September 11th, 2001 was one of the most tragic events in American history and shook the nation to its core. In the aftermath of that day President Bush, along with congress, were eager to capture the people responsible. They passed what would be one of the most controversial bills in history, the Authorization for Use of Military Force. This not only gave the President the power necessary to use military force, but to do it by any means necessary. The AUMF gave the President power far beyond what is given by the constitution, opened the door for Guantanamo bay and the torture of the prisoners held there; the United States should not perform torture at any capacity due to it’s activism for human rights and its membership in the Geneva Convention. …show more content…
John Parry states in Understanding Torture: Law, Violence, and Political Identity, that ““Torture”, is forbidden by international humanitarian law… international human rights law, and the law of most countries” (Parry, 15). As americans, we ostracize nations that ignore human rights within their borders, so we have no right to ignore them ourselves. It is stated on the US Department of state website that the US not only attempts to “Hold governments accountable to their obligations under universal human rights norms and international human rights instruments” but also to “Promote greater respect for human rights, including freedom from torture” (US Department of State, Human Rights). With language like this in the Department of State it is rather unbelievable that we would obstruct human rights ourselves. Even though the United States is arguably the most powerful nation in the world, it is not above any other nations. If America holds other nations to a certain standard when it comes to human rights then we must be prepared to hold ourselves to that same standard. In the years after the AUMF was passed, the Supreme Court began to attempt to take power away from the President, and to put more importance on human rights. This began with the case of Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld in 2004; Hamdi was a US citizen who was named an enemy combatant and held without reason. However the court ruled that even if named an enemy combatant, …show more content…
It is stated in the Geneva Convention that “Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited” (Geneva Convention, Article 13). The Geneva convention is very clear that member nations are prohibited to use torture. The Geneva Convention is law and that was made clear in the case of Hamdan vs Rumsfeld, a supreme court case in 2006. Part of the court's decision was that the President and military had to respect the Geneva convention even at Guantanamo Bay, which was another attempt by the court to control the power given to the President by the AUMF. This was important because it made it illegal for the military to torture those held at Guantanamo. Those who support the use of torture will was that the Geneva Convention does not matter. Yes, the Geneva convention is international law and the United States is a member, however, international law does not always matter. There is no higher power to enforce international law than the nations of the world, and none more powerful than the United States. If the United States was to blatantly ignore the Geneva Convention, some would argue that there would be no backlash. However, if the United States did disregard the International Law, it would affect the way other nations viewed and