Coercive Interrogation Analysis - Essay Example

Because of the strict observance of the protections without exception, the ability of the law to constrain state violence is severely limited.
Recently, news reports and videos publicized the use of coercive interrogation techniques on suspected and known terrorists under incarceration. Investigations disclosed government memoranda which argued that such methods were of utmost necessity due to the threat to the nation. Furthermore, the use of coercive interrogation is not per se illegal, because (1) humanitarian Geneva Conventions could not be applied to the case of suspected Al Qaeda terrorists; (2) coercive interrogations conducted in Guantanamo Bay were conducted under the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and were not covered by the statute; and (3) the president as commander-in-chief has the constitutional authority to disregard treaty or statutory prohibitions in addressing the “war on terror”.

Many legal authorities both in government and the private sector disagree with this position. Their common observation is that the United States has “departed from the international consensus on norms and rules for military engagement”, but it does so in a manner that does not ignore or transgress international humanitarian law (IHL). Rather, the US reinterprets the IHL such that it permits for the advancement of its political agendas, giving the departure from the norm a semblance of legitimacy.

On the other hand, what some see as a liberal and self-serving reinterpretation of the law, others view it as a necessary development of law to enable the country to respond to contemporary realities. To address present-day threats to the nation, the extra-legal measures model is seen as necessary and applicable for “truly extraordinary occasions”. “The seemingly absolute prohibitions of torture in international and U.S. law have hidden ambiguities and exceptions, which in turn create space for argument and manipulation – and for lawful torture. Most significant is the idea of necessity as a criminal defense and a justification for state violence”. It is thus that some forms of state violence are prohibited by law, but the law also allows for exceptions that permit the limited or justified use of violence. Coercive interrogation is on such form of violence thus legitimated.

Liberal use of violence is never an option. The choice lies between the absolute ban of torture, or selectively exempting certain cases. “Necessity” provides the requisite criterion and defense for the justified use of coercive interrogation by the state in individual cases. It is generally accepted that limited use of violence should be employed only under specific conditions, such as where imminent danger is to be averted, and only when the violent deed is the last and only recourse possible. The option to resort to extreme measures for the sake of self-protection should always be left open to the State. Read More