TORTURE OF TERRORIST SUSPECTS
Case Study Presentation for
Introduction to Ethics
Jill Stiemsma
Monday, 8:30
1
THE ETHICAL DILEMMA
The United States’ position on torture of terrorist suspects has been
challenged both in the US and worldwide. Should we continue to support the Bush
Administration’s stance on the use of torture so military forces can gain
information from suspects quickly?
TERMS/DEFINITIONS
Geneva Convention:
Following WWII, governments around the world, including the US, agreed to
treaties that would protect civilian persons in times of war, occupation, etc.
Signatories agreed in Article 3, for example, to collect and care for the sick and
wounded; to shun all forms of violence, including rape, murder, and degrading
treatment; etc. (Int’l Red Cross, 2008).
One of the treaties in particular addressed the treatment of prisoners of war, the
focus of this project.
Torture:
The Third Geneva Convention defines torture as “acts of violence or intimidation”
and “any act by which severe pain and suffering whether physical or mental is
intentionally inflicted” (Shapiro, n.d., para. 17).
In the US, this definition went largely uncontested until after 9/11 when Assistant
Attorney General Jay Bybee “clarified” the US’ position: “Physical pain amounting
to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical
injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." [The
harm] "must cause some lasting, though not necessarily permanent, damage."
2
Obviously, this definition lies outside the intent of the Geneva Convention
(Shapiro, n.d., para. 18).
This report will use the definition of torture outlined in the Geneva Convention.
3
Waterboarding:
Generally, a suspect is suspended upside down on an inclined board with his face
covered by a piece of cloth. Water is then slowly poured over the cloth so that it
clings to the prisoner’s nostrils and mouth. As the water trickles into his lungs, the
prisoner experiences “drowning,” an occurrence so frightening that the average
prisoner relents after only 14 seconds. Waterboarding has been banned by both
international law and US policy. “In fact, the US has historically treated
waterboarding as a criminal act” (“Drowning on Dry Land,” 2007, p. 17).
Black Sites:
Black sites are secret prisons outside the US where US prisoners may be tortured
while the US keeps its “hands clean”. Small cells, perhaps 7’ by 10’, hold naked
prisoners who are handcuffed for weeks at a time. The lights are never turned off
while speakers blast noise 24 hours a day. The guards, dressed in all black, utter
nary a word. Literally, the treatment drives prisoners crazy (Benjamin, n.d., para.
1-3).
STARTING QUESTIONS
1. Supposedly, the US is a democratic country that insists on due process, etc.
So why has the issue of torture become an issue at all?
2. Can we actually find evidence that persons in our custody have been
tortured?
3. On what basis has the US justified its use of torture, if in fact it has?
4. How has the world court of opinion responded to the US’ stance?
5. Have members of the military, CIA, FBI, etc., changed their minds at all
about the use of torture?
4
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
Article 13 of the Geneva Convention, adopted on August 12, 1949, commits
signatories (one of whom is the United States) to the following care of prisoners
of war:
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, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In
particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or
scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital
treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of
violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited (Office of the High
Commissioner).
President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice have repeatedly
insisted that that the US does not torture its prisoners despite reports from such
reputable organizations as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the
American Civil Liberties Union as well as from our own Pentagon, the FBI, and the
International Committee of the Red Cross (Shapiro, n.d., para. 1 & 2).
“Army Major-General Taguba's report (2/04) states that prisoner
mistreatment at Abu Ghraib was ‘systemic’ and not just practiced by a few
soldiers. The Schlesinger Panel (appointed by President Bush) in its report (8/04)
5
found that high-level officers bore responsibility for abusive treatment at various
detention centers and for the deaths of at least five prisoners from torture.
Dozens of other prisoners have died in U.S. custody, some under suspicious
circumstances” (Shapiro, n.d., para. 6).
In 2005, Senator (and now Presidential Candidate) John McCain, himself a
victim of torture while a prisoner in Viet Nam, led the charge against any form of
military torture, a stance he maintains publicly to this day. Yet, he voted against
that very same torture ban (Military Commissions Act) and has failed to commit to
closing the School of the Americas. As such, ending our policy of torture is
fraught with difficulty and political wrangling (Casteel, n.d.).
This project, then, will examine the evidence – or potential lack thereof – of
prisoner abuse by the military or other actors on behalf of the US as well as
consider the ethics of the current US stance though it violates Geneva Convention
treaties.
6
THE EVIDENCE
The Justification for Using Torture:
Limited Public Outcry:
John Ashcroft was Attorney General when “secret” memos “redefined
torture and immunized torturers” (that is, freed torturers from the threat of
prosecution). Later, the head of the Office of Legal Council, Jack Goldsmith,
would describe those memos as “horrific legal reasoning” and “bad lawyering”.
Nonetheless, new memos did not substantially change interrogation practices
(Brand, 2008, para. 7). So, given “bad lawyering and horrific legal reasoning,” why
does the military persist in its use of torture? Democratic societies, especially,
are prone to tolerate torture when it is tied to “counter-terrorism” activities,
claims Jessica Wolfendale. “In a 2003 online poll, 65% of respondents approved of
the use of torture interrogations for terrorist suspects, and 49% of those
approved of the use of torture in all interrogations.” In short, with minimal public
outcry, torture methods can be used with impunity (2007, p. 105).
7
Fighting Fire with Fire:
Officials argue that “the methods used … were primarily or exclusively a
response to the magnitude of the threat encountered.” Today, obviously, we want
to quickly obtain information to avoid further human catastrophe (avoiding the
“ticking bomb,” so to speak). Extreme violence can thus be justified under
extreme conditions, claim some. Often implied is that a war on terrorism cannot be
fought under the same rules as “ordinary” warfare: “There was before 9/11, and
there was after 9/11 … After 9/11, the gloves came off,” argued a former head of
the US Counterterrorism Centre (Wolfendale, 2007, p. 105).
Such Techniques Can Apparently Work:
Eighteen months after 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a suspected
“engineer of mass murder” with Al Qaeda, faced off with the CIA whose
operatives employed sleeplessness, pain, and cold to convince him to cooperate.
The CIA interrogator, who wanted nothing to do with such methods, waited while
others did their dirty deeds. Thereafter, interrogator Deuce Martinez stepped in.
Having gained his trust by discussing family and allowing him to air his complaints,
Mohammed along with others captured at the time turned into a sort of “terrorist
8
focus group, advising their captors on their fellow extremists’ goals, ideology and
tradecraft” (Shane, “Inside a 9/11 Mastermind’s Interrogation,” 2008, pp. 1 & 2).
When Abu Zubaydah became compliant after only 35 seconds of waterboarding,
“it was like flipping a switch.” A former counter-terrorism operative believed such
desperate measures were justified in “desperate times” when another attack such
as 9/11 appeared to be in the offing (Shane, “Inside a 9/11 Mastermind’s
Interrogation,” 2008, p. 4).
On the Other Hand…
Aligning with the “Bad Guys”:
The above logic has justified the disappearances and torture of thousands
of South Americans who comprised “active opposition forces,” including “left-wing
groups” and union supporters/organizers. Such does not put the USA in very good
company.
Amnesty International, for example, found that the US had provided
military training to the police and military forces of six countries, and over
24 countries (including Angola, Bolivia, Bosnia, Colombia, Ghana, Haiti and
Uganda) had received military training from private US security companies.
The groups receiving this training were often implicated in torture, killings,
and other human rights abuses. For example, US Special Operations Forces
trained military personnel in the Philippines in “unconventional” warfare
tactics, intelligence gathering, and interrogation skills. These same forces
were involved in rapes, torture and executions, undertaken in the process of
“counter-insurgency” operations – the very operations for which they were
9
trained. The former School of the Americas (now called the Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) in Fort Benning (whose
mission is to “develop and conduct resident training for Latin American
military personnel) trained many officers who were later involved in
atrocities committed in South America. The US has also handed prisoners
of war and terrorism suspects to the military and intelligence forces of
countries with less than salubrious [i.e., decent] human rights records: Since
Sept 11, the CIA has arranged for 230 suspects in 40 countries around the
globe to be jailed and questioned. One notable aspect of putting possible
terrorists in the hands of foreign security services is that [those] states …
use interrogation methods that include torture and threats to family
members (Wolfendale, 2007, pp. 108-109).
Getting False Confessions:
Further, no one can withstand the horrors of waterboarding. “Usually the
person goes into hysterics.” Yes, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the 9/11
attacks, yielded valuable information after he was waterboarded. However, CIA
agents also noted that Mohammed “confessed” to plots to kill former Presidents
Clinton and Carter as well as Pope Paul II – sensational but false claims meant to
satisfy his interrogators (“Drowning on Dry Land,” 2007, p. 17).
Losing Public Trust:
In February 2008 the Justice Department moved to investigate the CIA ‘s
use of waterboarding. H. Marshall Jarrett from the Office of Professional
Responsibility became the first to want a public accounting of what is “widely
denounced as torture by human rights groups and legal authorities.”
10
Unfortunately, thereafter the US public learned that the CIA intentionally
destroyed the videotapes of its hard interrogations (Shane, 2008,
“Waterboarding,” p. 3).
Losing Respect in the Court of World Opinion:
While the US may drag its heels bringing torturers to justice, other
countries move forward. After a Lebanese-born German citizen was captured and
shipped off to Afghanistan, he was “held and tortured for five months”. When
CIA interrogators were convinced that he posed no terrorist threat, they returned
him to Germany, prompting an official European Union inquiry. Eventually, enough
evidence was gathered to indict 13 Americans on charges of kidnap and abuse.
Such charges represent a “heavy blow to the Bush administration” since the
charges are not brought by some “enemy propagandist but by the independent
judiciary of a friendly country ... The Munich prosecutor was sending a loud
message to Washington that nothing, not even the fight against terror, can justify
trampling the law” (“How They See Us,” 2007, page number unknown).
Moving into Even Sleazier Methods:
After the Supreme Court ruled that all prisoners held by the US must be
treated according to the Geneva Convention – translation: waterboarding is not
permissible - the CIA employed “sensory deprivation” instead. Studies indicate
11
that “some test subjects [begin] hallucinating within three hours and most [lose]
touch with reality and become desperate for human contact.” The transformation
is akin to psychosis (“Drowning on Dry Land,” 2007, p. 17).
Some FBI officials thought such torture methods “unnecessary and unwise,”
correctly predicting that “harsh methods would darken the reputation of the
United States and complicate future prosecutions,” a concern that became all too
true (Shane, “Inside a 9/11 Mastermind’s Interrogation,” 2008, p. 7).
In the light of public scrutiny, the CIA began using “contract employees” at
black sites rather than dirtying its own hands. Unfortunately, no one can know for
sure who poses a terrorist risk. And we have plenty of evidence that the innocent
as well as the presumably guilty are tortured.
Torturing the Innocent:
Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah stopped eating after months of torture;
he’d previously attempted suicide by slashing his wrists with a piece of metal.
Never was he charged; never was he provided a lawyer; never did he go before a
judge. Unfortunately, though he’s now released and all are convinced he’s an
innocent man, he “still suffers the mental consequences of prolonged detention and
abuse … Bashmilah said the psychological anguish inside a CIA black site is
12
exacerbated by the unfathomable unknowns for the prisoners. While he figured
out that he was being held by Americans, Bashmilah did not know for sure why,
where he was, or whether he would ever see his family again. He said, ‘Every time I
realize that there may be others who are still there where I suffered, I feel the
same thing for those innocent people who just fell in a crack’" (Benjamin, n.d., para.
7-9).
Creating a Constitutional Quagmire:
Imagine you are living – legally I should add – in a foreign country.
Maybe you’re a student living with your family, studying at a local university.
One day, you are charged with credit-card fraud and making false
statements. But you never go to trial on these charges.
Instead, you are held in a military prison for four years and allowed no
outside contact, even with family or lawyers, for the first 16 months of
detention. You are denied basic necessities, exposed to sensory deprivation,
threatened with rape and sodomy. Still, no other charges are filed.
You are “designated” an enemy combatant, but there is no opportunity to
challenge that designation. No tribunal, not even a military one, reviews the
determination. It is enough that the country’s leader says you are a danger.
The ‘Justice’ ministry supports him. When you finally find lawyers to
challenge your detention, ‘Justice’ department lawyers fight them every step
of the way. And for two years, they win.
What kind of country would do that to a person? Ali al-Marri, a citizen of
Qatar, has been held under precisely these circumstances for the last four
years in a military prison in South Carolina.
Two years into his detention, lawyers from NYU’s Brennan Center for
Justice brought suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the
13
government’s actions (Estrich, 2007, page # unknown).
The Federal Appeals Court in Richmond, VA, ruled in this case that the
President cannot indefinitely hold prisoners as doing so “would have disastrous
consequences for the Constitution – and the country.” Certain that it would lose on
appeal, the Administration immediately moved Joe Padilla out of a military prison
and into the civilian criminal justice system where he was charged with criminal
conspiracy in a plot to set off radioactive bombs. Similarly, the Administration
quickly returned Esam Handi to Saudi Arabia after locking him up at Guantanamo
Bay with the “worst of the worst”. The Mesa AZ Tribune concluded: “The court's
rebuff of this expansive view of presidential power is one more step in returning
the country to where the Constitution says it should be” (“Appeals Court
Decisions,” 2007, para. 2 and 7-9).
Probably concerned with the US’ behavior, Canada’s highest court, in
February 2007, unanimously struck down a law that would have allowed the
government to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely and without charges. As our
courts are now more prone to conclude, “The overarching principle of fundamental
justice that applies here is this: Before the state can detain people for significant
periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process,” wrote the chief
justice (Austen, 2007, p. 1).
14
THE CONFLICTING VALUES
Obviously, the Administration values “national security” over “due process”
under the law. Many are concerned with humane treatment of prisoners,
regardless of the nature of the crime (otherwise, we perhaps share too much in
common with the perpetrators). Certainly issues of fairness come into play: Is it
fair to let potential terrorists continue unimpeded? On the other hand, is it fair
to treat the guilty and the innocent as though both are guilty?
15
GOODS, RIGHTS AND VIRTUES:
Using Torture to Extract Information
from Terrorist Suspects
GOODS
Benefits:

Quickly get desired
information

Scare suspects into
informing

Save untold lives

Obtain information we
might not get otherwise
RIGHTS

The right to protect
ourselves from terrorist
activities

The right to mistreat
unscrupulous actors who
wouldn’t be the least
concerned about the
harm they caused us
VIRTUES

Are we becoming wimpy,
afraid to defend
ourselves in the name of
being “nice”?

National Security trumps
everything else: For if
we can’t stop terrorists,
what kind of life will we
lead?
________________
________________
Costs:

Get fallacious
information – informants
may say anything to stop
the torture

Lose respect in the court
of world opinion

Trample the rights of
too many innocents

Turn the good guys into
equally abusive human
beings

Encourage other
governments to do our
dirty work, fostering
terrorism

The right to due process:
to be advised of the
charges, to be
represented by an
attorney, to be judged in
a trial by our peers in a
reasonably speedy
manner

The right to expect the
US government to honor
its treaty obligations

The right to humane
treatment

Humaneness: If we don’t
treat others humanely,
after all, what’s the
point of calling ours a
democracy?

Personal Security:
Aren’t we all entitled to
know that we won’t be
tortured or disappeared?
Don’t we hate it when
terrorists kidnap and
torture those on “our
side”?
16
MARKKULA CENTER MODEL
What’s Wrong Personally, Interpersonally, and Institutionally?
Obviously, if innocent people are kidnapped, swept away to black sites, held
indefinitely, and tortured to boot, there’s something wrong … personally, nationally,
and internationally. A democratic society should hold itself to higher ideals. That
65% of US poll respondents found torture acceptable says bad things about
American values in general, I would argue. To save ourselves from terrorist
threats, are we so willing to forego basic human fairness?
Beyond Legal or Institutional Concerns:
While much of this paper has focused on legal and institutional concerns,
more importantly we must ask, once again, why Americans are so willing – living as
we do in a democracy – to forego basic human rights. What has happened to basic
human decency? To fairness and justice? And, in the end, to our reputation in the
world?
Relevant Facts and Facts Unknown:
We certainly have much credible evidence of US torture and imprisonment
without due process. What we don’t know, however, is the extent and nature of
the torture. With the CIA’s destroying its interrogation tapes, the “hard
evidence” disappeared. Monetarily challenged groups such as the ACLU and
17
organizations such as NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice are left to fight the deep
coffers of the federal government.
Further, could traditional methods of interrogation prove just as – if not
more - effective at gaining information than that obtained through brutal
treatment? “A definitive answer is unlikely under the Bush Administration, which
has insisted in court that not a single page of 7,000 documents on the [CIA]
program can be made public” (Shane, “Inside a 9/11 Mastermind’s Interrogation,”
2008, p. 10).
Nor in the end do we know the extent to which this brutality has in fact
protected us from terrorist attack. One could easily counter that such treatment
in fact breeds more terrorists. But that’s a discussion left for another day.
Individuals and Groups with a Stake in the Outcome:
All Americans have a stake in the outcome of this debate. How do we want
to proceed in the world: as a bully -- as a tyrant -- who will not be denied? Or, as
a civil actor in a sometimes not-so-civil world?
Obviously, those suspected of ties to terrorist groups have a stake in the
outcome. For if they can be swept away without anyone knowing their
18
whereabouts, if they can be tortured for years, if they can be harbored without
access to the court system, then democracy – and humanity – has failed them.
Worse, the US has trained the military of 40 countries – supposedly our
“friends” – to brutalize and torture as well. What kind of precedent are we willing
to set? What kind of world are we creating in the name of “national security”?
The Utilitarian Approach:
Since the utilitarian approach would support the action that produces the
greatest balance of good over harm, the ethical decision could go either way. One,
while torture is an awful act, “in some instances the potential death of thousands
of innocent civilians outweighs the suffering of the individual” (Wolfendale, 2007,
p. 106). On the other hand, such justification fails to take into account other
serious consequences resulting from allowing torture: “Establishing the institutions
required to sustain such well-honed practice is fraught with perils that the
utilitarian would condemn, all things considered” (p. 107). In the end, I would argue
that the most reasonable conclusion of a utilitarian would be to refrain from
torture. After all, who wants to build institutions such as the FBI, CIA, and US
military – all charged with protecting us – that at the same time condone torture,
loss of due process, etc. It’s a slippery slope!
19
The Rights Approach:
Clearly, the rights-based approach can go only one way since ethical action
“must protect and respect the moral rights of those affected” (Markkula Center).
“Most rights-based theories will generally denounce all torture as a violation of
basic human rights” (Wolfendale, 2007, p. 113). Clearly, there is no way a sane
human being “consents” to being tortured.
The Fairness or Justice Approach:
Since, according to the Justice Approach, all equals should be treated
equally – and all unequals, unequally – then the unequal treatment must be based on
some “defensible standard”. An imbalance of power is indefensible. Consequently,
a fair system would bring charges against the accused, would provide the evidence
rather than conceal it, and allow for a timely trial by one’s peers.
The Common Good Approach:
Since, according to the Common Good Approach, ethical actions should
contribute to the quality of communal life, it would be hard to defend torture.
According to the Markklua description, “Respect and compassion for all others especially the vulnerable - are requirements of such reasoning.” Clearly, torture
fits neither the definition of “common good” nor my understanding of “respect and
compassion”.
20
The Virtue Approach:
So, what ethical action would be consistent with “ideal virtues”? The answer
is quite obvious. If we want to be respected as a nation of laws, as compassionate
citizens, as trustworthy in our international agreements (i.e., the Geneva
Convention relative to prisoners of war), and as a just society, we have little choice
but to strongly oppose torture as defined not by the Bush administration but by
the Geneva Convention. Just as we expect “ordinary citizens” to obey the law, we
must expect the same from our institutions, especially the FBI, CIA and military …
and our president.
Varying Options for Action:
1. Continue to support the Bush Administration’s definition of torture in terms
other than agreed to in the Geneva protocols.
2. Join the local peace initiative to fight systemic institutionalized torture.
3. Join the annual protests at Fort Benning, GA, to close the School of the
Americas and other such training facilities around the world.
4. Meet personally with both Senators and Congressional Representative. Give
them a copy of this report.
21
5. Take time to investigate other organizations mobilized to end torture. A
listing of many such organizations can be accessed at
http://www.tassc.org/index.php?sn=263.
PERSONAL ANALYSIS
Personal Assumptions Prior to Project:
I opposed the US’ definition of torture prior to beginning this project. I
could not understand how a country, which on its face wants to promote democracy
around the world, could support its own version of terrorism. You can’t have it
both ways, in my mind. For a couple years now, I’ve collected related newspaper
articles; my stack was six inches thick. I used only a fraction of those resources in
this report. The examples of torture are both accessible and overwhelming.
My Current Prejudices:
If anything, I’ve now better clarified my position and feel more strongly
than ever that the US is on the wrong track. I was especially taken with
Wolfendale’s argument that “Establishing the institutions required to sustain such
well-honed practice is fraught with perils that the utilitarian would condemn, all
things considered” (2008, p. 107). I don’t want to live in a nation that teaches our
own military, CIA, and FBI – much less other nations’ – to torture and ignore basic
human rights.
22
My Socialization:
I was a child of the Viet Nam era so I was certainly impacted by what I
viewed as our government’s willingness to lie to its citizens and to invest itself in
areas of the world where we had no business meddling. Given that experience, I
am more naturally wary of our government’s behavior than others might be.
Further, having traveled to virtually all continents – with the opportunity to be
educated in those countries – I am aware, perhaps more than other American
citizens can be, of how poorly America is perceived worldwide. I am ashamed of
what this administration has done in terms of limiting both human rights and
constitutional rights. As one German told me, “When Americans voted for Bush
the first time, I thought, ‘Well, they made a mistake.’ But when you voted him into
office the second time, I had to rethink what Americans are really like.” I so
worry about how ill-informed Americans are and consequently what we allow our
government to do, here at home and abroad.
My Own Growth:
I think the most important growth occurred in my willingness to actually DO
something. We’ve had a small but committed group of peace activists in Fond du
Lac. While I’ve occasionally joined the weekly demonstrations on Johnson Street,
I’ve stayed clear of stronger ties. Now, I feel a more pressing need to join.
23
Which Theory Best Represents My Views:
I most appreciate the Virtue Approach as it applies to torture. I’m very
concerned that Americans become more “virtuous” if you will. I want to see us
become more compassionate in our use of the environment, in our use of our “fair
share” of the resources, in our trade agreements, in our immigration policy, etc.
We have a long way to go. Now, with the pressures of high oil prices, I worry we’ll
make even more selfish decisions.
What Actions I Will Take:
1. Join the local peace initiative to fight systemic institutionalized torture.
2. Continue to join the annual protests at Fort Benning, GA, to close the School
of the Americas and other such training facilities around the world.
3. Meet personally with both Senators and Congressional Representative. Give
them a copy of this report.
My Own Growth Regarding Ethical Issues in General:
There’s nothing that makes you learn like teaching a subject! Teaching
Ethics thus keeps issues such as the US’ policy on torture in the forefront for me.
In the last two years, I’ve become a much stronger advocate for immigration
reform because I had the opportunity to visit Mexico under the Tutelage of lay-led
24
missioners who’ve witnessed firsthand the downside of NAFTA. As Vice-President
of the Just Fare Market, I’m constantly made aware of progress as well as the
injustices built into our economic system. Now, of course, because of this project,
the peace initiative has become more central to my concerns. As I work on these
issues, I also meet others with similar views and find new avenues to promote
citizenship.
25
REFERENCES
Appeals court decisions on rights of ‘combatants’ slowly restores balances. (2007,
June 20). The [Mesa AZ] Tribune Editorial. Retrieved from Ebscohost on July
29, 2008.
Austen, Ian. (February 24, 2007). Canadian court limits detention in terror cases.
The New York Times On-Line.
Benjamin, M. (No date). Inside the CIA’s notorious ‘black sites’. Retrieved on July
29, 2008, from http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/14/bashmilah/#
Brand, M. (2008, July 17). What will Ashcroft tell Congress? NPR: Day to
Day. Retrieved from Ebscohost, July 28, 2008.
Casteel, J. (No date). Ban all torture. Video clip retrieved July 28, 2008,
from http://www.TrueMajority.org/NoTorture
Drowning on dry land. (2007, November 16).The Week, p. 17.
Estrich, S. (2007, June 14.) Guilty until proven innocent. Fond du Lac Reporter,
page number unknown.
How they see us: Holding the CIA accountable for its crimes. (2007, February 16).
The Week, page number unknown.
International Red Cross. (2008). International humanitarian law. Retrieved July
29, 2008, from
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86
146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Geneva convention relative to
the treatment of prisoners of war. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Shane, S. (2008, June 22). Inside a 9/11 mastermind’s interrogation. The New
York Times On-Line.
26
Shane, S. (2008, February 23). Waterboarding focus of inquiry by justice
department. The New York Times On-line.
Shapiro, A. (No Date). The torture issue (with DBQ). Teachable Moment:
Morningstar Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. Retrieved July, 28,
2008, from http://www.teachablemoment.org/high/torturedbq.html
Wolfendale, J. (2007). Torture and the military profession. New York: PalgraveMacMillan.