After we viewed the portion of the television special that informed us about the atrocities that were being committed at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib, I really started to wonder what exactly this concept of interrogation actually is. What reasoning did we have behind the suspected "prisoners of war" that the U.S. army was keeping in Abu Ghraib? Did we have evidence that these people were not simply civilians caught in the wrong place at the wrong time? I simply do not agree with the tactics that the U.S used to attempt to get information out of these people.
I can completely understand wanting to get information about Saddam or other intelligence that would be beneficial to the defense of the United States, but when the U.S. army is hauling in random Iraqi people, holding them prisoners, and claiming that they have information that would help us against the war on terror, then it blurs everything.
Simply asking Iraqi people questions about what they know about the war or terrorists could be easy enough in an attempt to gain intelligence. But dragging them into a prison, holding them there, and interrogating them violently is a completely different story. No matter what the circumstances are, I firmly believe that torture is NEVER justifiable. However, the U.S. army decided that torture was a decisive tactic in an attempt to gain information from the Iraqi people. Sexually embarrassing, physical violence, any many other torture methods were utilized. This concept of vicious interrogation simply is not what anybody deserves. I believe that in dire circumstances, interrogation should be done, but never with means such as the ones that were carried out at Abu Ghraib. Asking questions to multiple people may yield better results than torturing a select few of individuals. I truly hope that tragic events such as this do not transpire in future conflicts.