Suchergebnisse

From the Publisher: The military claims to be an honourable profession, yet military torture is widespread. Why is the military violating its own values? Jessica Wolfendale argues that the prevalence of military torture is linked to military training methods that cultivate the psychological dispositions connected to crimes of obedience. While these methods are used, the military has no credible claim to professional status. Combating torture requires that we radically rethink the nature of the military profession and military training

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the phrase "torture lite" has appeared in public discourse about torture, used by journalists, military intelligence personnel, and academics to distinguish between two kinds of torture: torture, which is violent, physically mutilating, cruel and brutal, and torture lite, which refers to interrogation methods that are, it is claimed, more restrained and less severe than real torture. Techniques in the latter category, which are also described as "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "stress and duress methods," include extended sleep deprivation, noise bombardment, and forced standing. In this paper I argue that the distinction between torture and torture lite is attractive to liberal democracies because it bolsters what David Luban has called the "liberal ideology of torture," the myth that torture can be compatible with the basic commitments of liberal states. However, as I shall demonstrate, torture lite techniques are torture, for they are sufficiently cruel and severe to meet any plausible definition of torture. Furthermore, the use of terms like "torture lite" and the nature of such techniques encourage a moral psychology in which the violence and cruelty of torture is denied, the victim's suffering is hidden, minimized and doubted, and the torturer's responsibility is diminished. As such, the use of torture lite techniques is likely to encourage the normalization of torture.

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the phrase 'torture lite' has often appeared in public discourse, used by journalists, military intelligence personnel, and academics in discussions about the justifiability of the use of torture in the fight against terrorism. Specifically, torture lite (and related terms, such as 'enhanced interrogation' and 'stress and duress') has been used to distinguish between the traditional concept of torture, which we think of as violent, physically mutilating, and brutal, and certain interrogation methods that are, it is claimed, less severe, more restrained, and physically less violent. For example, Joseph Lelyveld in the New York Times argued for this distinction, and claimed further that torture lite techniques might be permissible; Mark Bowden in the Atlantic Monthly argued that such techniques might be justified to fight terrorism; and U.S. Naval Intelligence Officer Wayne Madsen, when interviewed in the Guardian, claimed that only torture lite (and not torture) was being used by U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. However, despite the frequency with which the term is used, the distinction between torture and torture lite is not one that is recognized in any of the international conventions dealing with torture, and it does not directly refer to the distinction that is made in international conventions between torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Why, then, has the phrase 'torture lite' become part of the public discourse on torture? Adapted from the source document.

In America, Britain and Australia the threat of terrorism has been used to justify radical new legislation that gives police and intelligence agencies unprecedented powers to detain and question people believed to have information connected to terrorism. In this paper I explore the nature of the threat of non-state terrorism -- threat to national security and the well-being of citizens. I argue that terrorism does not pose a threat sufficient to justify the kinds of counterterrorism legislation currently being enacted. Furthermore many of the current counterterrorism practices pose a greater threat to individual physical security and well-being than non-state terrorism. We should fear counterterrorism more than we fear terrorism. Adapted from the source document.