II. Can We Ever Justify or Excuse Torturers? |
Torture v. the Basic Principles of the US Military
* The author is a colonel in the United States Army and an Academy Professor, Department of Law, United States Military Academy. He is currently a student at the Naval War College. The opinions expressed by the author in this essay are personal in nature and are not intended to reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy or the United States Army. [dave.wallace1{at}cox.net]
 |
Abstract |
|---|
It has already been noted that the recent legal justifications for torture provided by Bush Administration officials contravene human rights law, international criminal law and international humanitarian law as expressed in treaties and customary rules. However, the author provides a legal and policy analysis informed by military law to demonstrate that the use of torture or ill-treatment of detainees also contravenes the stated policy of the US military and is inconsistent with the basic principles of lawful warfare. More importantly, torture and the ill-treatment of prisoners are both ineffective as an interrogation tool and also hamper military effectiveness by destroying discipline. These reasons, in addition to the obvious moral considerations, demonstrate why modern armies have consistently adhered to customary and treaty rules prohibiting torture and the ill-treatment of prisoners. The author concludes that the basic principles of warfare demand that this prohibition constitutes a bright-line rule that applies to all prisoners regardless of legal status.