Torture: from Algiers to Abu Ghraib

MacMaster, Neil

doi:10.1177/0306396804047722

Cited by 48 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…76 With such uncertainty, the credibility of this scenario seems to turn on perceptions of the level of threat, which, ironically, the very use of the scenario increases! 77 Interestingly, in this re-framing of torture, the revisionists and their accomplices invoke a long-standing torture debate in Israel in which torture was also excessively rationalized using similar arguments, 78 showing that norm revisionists and their accomplices, as well as norm entrepreneurs, can piggy-back on past examples to gain legitimacy for their cause. And like the Israeli torture debate, this frame proved surprisingly effective on those most reluctant to endorse torture of any kind.…”

Section: Ticking Bombs Threaten the Torture Normmentioning

confidence: 99%

Norm Regress: US Revisionism and the Slow Death of the Torture Norm

McKeown¹

2009

International Relations

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is the norm against torture suffering a crisis of legitimacy within the United States, and if so, does this constitute a crisis in the norm itself? Can constructivist international relations theory explain how the norm came to be signifi cantly weakened by its most important proponent? Constructivist literature on norms has hitherto suffered from a 'nice norm bias' that does not adequately take into account the reversibility of so-called 'internalized' norms like the one prohibiting torture. Through an examination of the rhetoric, policies and practices surrounding US interrogation after 9/11, this article addresses omissions in constructivist literature by providing a theoretical model to explain 'norm regress', or the death of norms. It claims that the torture norm is suffering a crisis of legitimacy within the United States and any future incidences of torture by liberal states may well bring about a crisis of legitimacy in the international norm itself.

show abstract

Section: Ticking Bombs Threaten the Torture Normmentioning

confidence: 99%

Norm Regress: US Revisionism and the Slow Death of the Torture Norm

McKeown¹

2009

International Relations

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, from the School of the Americas (now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation), originally based in Panama and since 1984 at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, the United States has trained more than 60 000 soldiers and police officers from the Caribbean and Central and South America in counter-insurgency methods that include coercive interrogation and torture. 74 What is novel about the current situation is that the obsession with torture does not breed in darkness, in the secret shadows of the state; it flowers in the threshold between the legal and the extra-legal. This does not mean that Guantánamo is a transparent space; its effectiveness for those beyond its cages lies precisely in its being a space of constricted visibility.…”

Section: Intimate Geographies and 'Coercive Interrogation'mentioning

confidence: 99%

The black flag: guantánamo bay and the space of exception

Gregory

2006

Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography

269

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American prison camp at Guantánamo Bay has often been described as a lawless space, and many commentators have drawn on the writings of Giorgio Agamben to formalize this description as a 'space of exception'. Agamben's account of the relations between sovereign power, law and violence has much to offer, but it fails to recognize the continued salience of the colonial architectures of power that have been invested in Guantánamo Bay, is insufficiently attentive to the spatialities of international (rather than national) law, and is unduly pessimistic about the politics of resistance. Guantánamo Bay depends on the mobilization of two contradictory legal geographies, one that places the prison outside the United States ito allow the indefinite detention of its captives, and another that places the prison within the United States in order to permit their 'coercive interogation'. A detailed analysis of these interlocking spatialities -as both legal texts and political practices -is crucial for any crique of the global war prison. The relations between law and violence are more complex and contorted than most accounts allow, and sites like Guantánamo Bay need to be seen not as paradigmatic spaces of political modernity (as Agamben argues) but rather as potential spaces whose realization is an occasion for political struggle not pessimism.

show abstract

“…There is a rich literature on torture, which of late has tended to focus closely on the (il)legitimacy of torture in the face of the terrorist threat (Studies include but are not limited to : Bellamy 2006;Dershowitz 2001Dershowitz , 2004aDershowitz , 2004bGreenberg and Dratel 2005;Lazreg 2008;Levinson 2004;MacMaster 2004;Ramsey 2006;Sands 2008). Prior to 9/11, work on torture focused on several key themes, including the history of torture (Beccaria [1764(Beccaria [ ] 1995Peters 1985), torture as a tool for punishment (Beccaria [1764(Beccaria [ ] 1995Foucault 1977), torture by totalitarian and authoritarian states (Arendt 1966;Rejali 1991Rejali , 1994, the role of the individual in torture (Cohen 2001;Huggins 1998;Huggins et al 2002;Milgram 1974), and torture as a tool of war or counter-terrorism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dirty Hands, Clean Conscience? The CIA Inspector General's Investigation of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” in the War on Terror and the Torture Debate

Blakeley¹

2011

Journal of Human Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 'War on Terror' has generated fierce debate on torture as a means of thwarting terrorist threats. The argument is polarized between those who take a utilitarian position and those who seek to uphold the absolute prohibition on torture. Within the utilitarian camp, there are those who argue that torture, while immoral, should be legalized for use in the fight against terrorism, so that it can be better controlled and regulated. This article will provide new insights through its analysis of the CIA Inspector General's 2004 Special Review of Counterterrorism, Detention and Interrogation Activities, declassified in 2009. This offers important evidence that counters the key assumptions of contemporary torture apologists. Specifically, the Inspector General's findings reinforce the argument that torture is not effective, that efforts to legalize its use under controlled conditions are futile, and that even where torture is permitted by higher authorities, recriminations against the perpetrators are still likely to ensue. Furthermore, torture tends not to be aimed at thwarting imminent threats. Its use by the CIA in the 'War on Terror' is no exception. In any case it has yielded little evidence that could not have been obtained through legitimate means.

show abstract

Torture: from Algiers to Abu Ghraib

Cited by 48 publications

References 3 publications

Norm Regress: US Revisionism and the Slow Death of the Torture Norm

Norm Regress: US Revisionism and the Slow Death of the Torture Norm

The black flag: guantánamo bay and the space of exception

Dirty Hands, Clean Conscience? The CIA Inspector General's Investigation of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” in the War on Terror and the Torture Debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About