Pros And Cons Of Enhanced Interrogation

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, or EIT’s related to gathering and using information has been a controversial subject in military practice and the criminal justice field. More recently, the media has shed light on some of the gruesome CIA practices of systematic torture on suspects since the release of information on The War on Terror and Guantanamo Bay detainees. Specifically, the debate focuses on whether these enhanced interrogations yield accurate information and its legality based on human rights laws. Many justify the use of torture-like methods when highlighting the importance of combating domestic terrorism and stopping extremist groups. These interrogation techniques are not a recent idea. The use of interrogating people through

Torture has evolved, from an archaic form of punishment, to the preferred method of extremists as well as the US Armed Forces secretive tactic of interrogating terror suspects. The inspiration for interrogating and torturing people began long ago. For example, medieval instruments were cruel and intimidating. Victims would be stripped and bound or suspended before a device was used to mutilate the body. Modern instruments or methods include less elaborate means. This includes ice buckets, waterboarding, cutting tools or simply restraining the victim and exposing them to harsh environments. Torture and its origins have been documented from 530 AD, when the Roman Empire used torture as the highest form of truth. Various forms of torture didn’t decline substantially until the 1900’s. It wasn’t until 2000, that rates of torture noticeably increased since the 50’s. In 2004, the global awareness group Human Rights Watch found that 80 countries were using torture and ill treatment of citizens to punish political opposition, used in investigations, military and interrogation (Liberman,

Michael Hayden, he was asked: “What did you tell Leon Panetta, your successor as CIA director, to say about waterboarding?” Gen. Hayden replied, "Do not use the word 'torture' and 'CIA' in the same sentence ever again. You can object to some of the enhanced interrogation techniques. You can, in your heart of hearts, believe they meet some legal definition of torture. But Leon, you're taking over a workforce that did these things in good faith. They did these things with the assurance of the attorney general that they indeed were not torture. Do not accuse them of felonies." Michael Hayden went on to say, “Look, I get it. Honest men differ. A lot of good people describe these things as torture. The definitive legal judgment under which the agency was operating and you know sooner or later, Robert, someone has gotta call balls and strikes and that's the way it is. Pertaining to results, Gen. Hayden said that the information obtained from people who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques was vital. It allowed intelligence officials to gather information quickly after captives would resist, and later were “more willing to talk about the things we believed we needed to know to keep the country safe”(NPR, 2016). This highlights the primary concern of many interviews, which is limited