Harsh interrogation’ most recently came to be defined by the Bush administration as enhanced questioning methods used by U.S. government military and intelligence organizations. To many, it is merely a clever and politically correct phrase that cloaks the more ominous connotation of torture, yet this type of persecution dates back to the earliest recordings of human history.
As recently as World War II and the Vietnam War, heinous techniques were used by both allies and combatants to extract information for defense purposes (in fact, the methods were grotesque and frightening). They all called for the infliction of maximum pain and bodily (or emotional) harm as a means to ensure that individuals would supply accurate responses to tactical questions. Today, you will find that persons who purportedly initiate terrorist threats to Americans may undergo similar ‘grilling.’
Since the end of these conflicts, and in light of more recent skirmishes across the globe, many U.S. law enforcement agencies have taken a more voluble stance against the application of any type of physical, mental, or emotional abuse to write an unnecessary narrative. That, of course, includes the immoral debasing of persons accused of terrorist activity.
Are Interrogatory Methods a Political Ploy?
When the use of enhanced interrogation techniques came to the public’s attention, the military and intelligence organizations were quick to point out that they could in no way compare to the final moments of terror that American citizens had suffered as they were flown into the Twin Towers or were left to die horribly as first responders lost their own lives in valiant attempts to save them.
These visions were offered to serve as justification that amounted to nothing more than ‘tit for tat.’ How that translates to today’s use of interrogation in alleged terroristic threats is indicative of which organization is questioning the defendant.
Choosing an Alternative Resolution
Do alternative methods of questioning subjects in such dire matters of national
security exist?
Certainly there are a number of experts in political matters who agree this question merits more attention. However, as the nation awaits this new attitude and transformation, there are those in the military who continue to study the ethical options available to the military in regards to obtaining information from our adversaries.
Defense attorneys have long contended that the unconstitutionality of immoral interrogations extends beyond those who infringe upon our nation. In fact, persons who merely look like they could be terrorists are being treated and interrogated as such. Just like they have been post-9/11.
Conclusion
The use of ‘torture’ in its earlier explanation and the politically correct terminology of ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques should leave free-thinking citizens wondering where the line is drawn between constitutionality and rationality. With a clear understanding that silence on the matter has been mistaken for approval of the use of callous tactics to garner information, more people are speaking out against inhumanities such as harsh questioning strategies.
For the innocent person interrogated by law enforcement simply by fitting into societal façades of what an anarchist, if you will, should look like, harsh interrogations should be outlawed at all levels of government.
Have you been apprehended for terrorist threats or unfairly questioned or interrogated? Regardless if you are guilty or innocent, these tactics are wrong. Contact our firm today and let us serve justice to those who treated you unfairly.
