Chris Gomez
Professor Brown
English 1B
14 April 2013
From a Foundational Standpoint
The U.S. government and military are
infamous for the particular ways that they deal with and respond to crises
involving foreign policy and terrorism. The interesting part has to do with how
we interpret the decisions that these entities make. When talking abot
terrorism, it’s no surprise the subject of interrogation may become a sore spot
for everyone. It isn’t a sore spot because of how it looks or the gruesome
violence that it entails when imagined in the mind, but rather because the foundations
of interrogation techniques have always been found in large grey areas with the
judiciary system. Point being that interrogation techniques against terrorism
pose a concern with ethics and these ethics are seen and constructed from a
various assortment of perspectives. To be more specific, certain ethical
dilemmas arise from waterboarding. Waterboarding falls under the category of
“enhanced interrogation.” Knowing that the United States legal system outlaws
all forms of torture, waterboarding inevitably surfaces within this argument.
The future of how we view waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation
techniques and the premises by which we act on these views are crucial in
identifying this country as one that has ethical convictions that are enforced
with integrity. My argument on this subject is that based on preconceived
ethical criteria that is either philosophically intrinsic within us or
otherwise officially identified reveal some issues with the military’s enhanced
interrogation.
Professions within the field of medicine
pose an interesting philosophical aspect in regards to ethics. Unlike other
professions, “the profession of medicine has certain values built into it”
(Downie 135-137). If your profession is being a police officer in the United
States, you have an obligation to uphold and enforce the laws and regulations
within the jurisdiction you preside in without any discretion that involves
your own personal morals. You simply uphold your legislation on a legal basis.
On the other hand, a physician’s obligations differ. There are inherent codes
present in this field that characterize a physician’s obligations as revolving
around and stemming from “doing no harm”. Physicians must regard themselves as
healers. Likewise, doctors within the field
of psychology uphold similar standards. The American Psychological Association
provides a list of designated groups of the population, those of which permit
or deny the intervening of psychologists within interrogation proceedings;
“detainees” being a group that is protected from psychiatric intervention
(Downie 135-137).
With those codes of ethics that are
either inherent in the profession or otherwise legally sanctioned, we can see
legitimacy for concern when the Department of Justice releases documents that
describe how psychologists are “justifying the use of waterboarding and other
techniques” (Pope, and Gutheil 1178-1180). On top of that, the American Civil
Liberties Union revealed documents in 2008 confirming that psychologists
“supported illegal interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan” (Pope, and Gutheil
1178-1180). Before the analysis here can be established, it must be noted that
the Department of Justice requires that psychiatrists and physicians be present
in interrogation proceedings for detainees, including “enhanced interrogation”
such as waterboarding so as to mentally and physically assess all aspects of
those interrogated. More simply stated, doctors are being placed in situations
where their duties enable the U.S. government to perform activities that are in
direct opposition to the doctors’ inherent code of ethics. By aiding the
government in enhanced interrogation, even if that means tending to any
physical damages acquired during the interrogation, doctors are in direct
opposition to ethics that are engrained in the foundations of their profession.
Furthermore, these interrogative tactics require duties that are “sometimes the
job of the psychiatrist” (Downie 135-137). Assessing detainees upon whom
enhanced interrogation is applied requires psychiatric evaluation. Even though
detainees are specifically stated as a designated group protected from
psychological intervention within interrogative processes, the basic
requirements in enhanced interrogation involve psychiatric intervention. This
ethical discrepancy could not be more contradictory. On one side, we have
physicians and psychiatrists who stand by a code that prohibits them from
participating in interrogation consistent to waterboarding techniques. On the
other, the legal system not only permits, but also requires these two
professions to be involved. We can now see how waterboarding and enhanced
interrogation poses a contradiction to the ethical criteria that doctors
possess.
Waterboarding also poses some concerns
when analyzing how it interferes with the ethics of our legal system. This can
be shown without even referring to the idea of waterboarding as a form of
torture. The main issue here is that regardless of whether or not waterboarding
is torture or that waterboarding is considered unethical in any context, the
investigations that came from the waterboarding occurrence with the three
Al-Qaeda detainees involve some pretty contradictory circumstances that place
the U.S. government in a different ethical concern.
The subsequent formal hearings and
judicial proceedings that took place in response to the incident suggest a
question of integrity within the U.S. government. The ethical discrepancy in
this context need not be elaborated upon. Any and all interrogation techniques
are required to receive the Department of Justice’s “okay” before the military
can carry on with them. With that understood, not only must we assume that
waterboarding was evaluated by the D.O.J. before it was executed, but the
D.O.J. itself stated in 2005 that criminal investigations could not be
undergone on the issue that took place in 2002 because in it’s evaluation of
the enhanced interrogation technique of waterboarding, it “made a determination
as to its lawfulness” ("American Journal of International Law"
359-361, 177-179). I have to mention as well that this was in response to
Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s statement that he views waterboarding as
torture “if applied to himself” ("American Journal of International
Law" 359-361). So to put this into a simpler perspective: at some point,
the U.S. military needed to extract information from a select group of Al-Qaeda
members, they asked the D.O.J. if it was okay that they "waterboard"
them, the D.O.J. said it was okay, a few years later the attorney general says
that waterboarding is torture, the D.O.J. justifies their previous “torturing”
by saying that they said it was okay at the time so we didn’t really do
anything bad. Rather than focusing on the ethics of torture, this particular
analysis suggests that the ethical “self-exoneration” of the judicial system is
at an elementary level. This does two things. Firstly it shows that the U.S.
government simply defended itself, yet it was in a way that demonstrated authoritative
dominance in suppressing ethical concerns. Secondly, it poses the question: is
this how the judicial system of our government will respond to anything that
poses a changing and evolving ethical dilemma? Waterboarding conflicts with
this ethical criterion because it is issues like this push the U.S. government
to contradict its own propositions.
It helps to note that some of these
arguments presented don’t necessarily harmonize with every alternative view of
enhanced interrogation. In fact, when discussing medical doctors involvement in
these interrogations, some might feel that it isn’t unethical. If a doctor
doesn’t know that he is “healing” the injuries of a convicted terrorist, as is
the case in many interrogative proceedings, he isn’t performing against his
code of ethics. As far as the doctor knows, he or she is performing within
their standard. The problem with this argument is that it only tells us where
to place the blame. It may not be the doctor’s fault, but does this mean that
ignorance of the situation is placing the doctor’s actions outside of the
boundaries of the their ethical code? Regardless of whether or not a doctor is
aware of the context in which they performing their duties, they are still
performing them unethically. Placing the blame on the military instead of the
doctor, which would be the case in this hypothetical scenario, does not change
the fact that the doctor is performing outside their oath. The ethical dilemma
still stands. Not to mention that military psychologists “were enlisted to help
develop more aggressive interrogation methods…against terrorism suspects” (Pope,
and Gutheil 1178-1180). Not only are doctors working in the wrong even when it
seems right, certain professionals are hired for reasons that directly pose an
ethical concern.
Among the many problems that arise when
evaluating issues regarding torture, this presentation takes on a different
approach. Rather than deeming waterboarding as subject that needs to be defined
in relation to some arbitrary universal definition for torture, I present some
alternative ethical conflicts that don’t even require the breakdown of the
elements of the waterboarding for an in-depth analysis on its supposed
inhumanity. Moreover, we can see how the mere existence of waterboarding has
placed professionals such as doctors of medicine, psychiatry and psychology in
an ethical dilemma. Waterboarding doesn’t need to be inhumane for it to be
unethical because doctors are inherently prohibited in participating in such
acts. Unfortunately, the U.S. government demonstrates somewhat of a disregard
for this ethical construct by employing doctors to not only assist, but also to
help design and improve interrogation methods. In response to these acts, the
U.S. judiciary system has an interesting way of defending its convictions when
laws and ethics contradict one another. Being aware of this, is there something
else to be said of waterboarding? The fact that we don’t even need to describe
what waterboarding is specifically in order to argue its immorality says
something in itself; especially when we analyze how the military and government
react to it. Waterboarding may or may not be an ethically valid form of
interrogation, but it sure makes doctors and even the entire U.S. look bad from
a foundational standpoint.
Bibliography
Pope, Kenneth, and Thomas Gutheil.
"The interrogation of detainees: how doctors' and psychologists' ethical
policies differ." BMJ: British Medical Journal 338.7704 (2009):
1178-1180. JSTOR. Database. 14 Apr 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/25671588 >.
Downie, R.S. "The Ethics of Medical
Involvement in Torture." Journal of Medical Ethics 19.3 (1993):
135-137. JSTOR. Database. 14 Apr 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/27717300>.
"Senior U.S. Officials Acknowledge
Waterboarding of Three Suspected Terrorists; Administration Defends Practice
." American Journal of International Law 102.2 (2008): 359-361. JSTOR.
Database. 14 Apr 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034554 >.
"Secret Justice Department Memos Said
To Sanction "Severe" Interrogation Tactics." American Journal
of International Law 102.1 (2008): 177-179. JSTOR. Database. 14 Apr
2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40007788>.
No comments:
Post a Comment