Justifying the Use of Torture in the Name of Public Interest Essay Sample

Does The Ends Justify the Means: Justifying the usage of anguish in the name of Public Interest Public Administration can be thought of as where the gum elastic meets the route in the act of regulating via the Constitution. Under normal conditions the model of the fundamental law leaves room for Public Administrators to construe if they should regulate by what the “Public Interest” . wants or what they believe is in the public’s best involvement. Under the extra-ordinary times following the terrorist onslaughts of September 11. 2001 this discretion was asserted by the highest levesl of authorities. This determination to enforce its will on the. “Public Interest. ” erode the moral cloth of everyone involved down to the really bottom doing ordinary work forces and adult females to make atrocious things all for what they were led to believe was for the. ” Public Interest. ” The public involvement refers to the “common well-being” or “general welfare” . The public involvement is cardinal to policy arguments. political relations. democracy and the nature of authorities itself. While about everyone claims that helping the common wellbeing or general public assistance is positive. there is small. if any. consensus on what precisely constitutes the public involvement. or whether the construct itself is a consistent one ( “Public involvement. ” n. d. . p. 1 )

That definition of “Public Interest” ends with the premises that there is no consensus of precisely what constitutes the “Public Interest. ” The trouble in specifying the “Public Interest” puts force per unit area on elected functionaries in seeking to pass for the. ”Public Interest” and it puts even more force per unit area on the Public Officials to administer the. ”Public Interest. ” The inquiry is should public functionaries push plans that they feel the public demands or should they transport out plans the populace express they want through elections. “Are the retainers of the populace to make up one’s mind their ain class. or is their class of action to be decided by a organic structure outside themselves. The retainers of the populace are non to make up one’s mind their ain class: they are to be responsible to the elected. ” ( Stillman. 2009. p. 447 ) This would propose that elective functionaries are beholden to the electorate by the nature of their relationship but should senior degree decision makers be held to the same demands or should they regulate to what they believe the. “Public Interest. ” demands. “Politicians and employees are working non for the good of the populace in the sense of what the public demands. but of the wants of the populace expressed by the populace. ” ( Stillman. 2009. p. 448 )

If non clearly defined the ambiguity can filtrate down to street flat authorities and consequence or alter determinations. In order to get the better of this ambiguity proper Public Administrations must hold skilled executives who can right place the critical undertaking of their organisations. These decision makers must administer the authorization to manage these undertakings. Then they must inculcate their subsidiaries with a sense of intent and the liberty to allow them to acquire the occupation done. This demand to construe the. “Public Interest. ” led to the determination concatenation that allowed the President of The United States to ignore the Constitution and let the anguish of captives in the Abu Ghraib Prison. The onslaughts of September 11. 2001 intensified the United States’ worldwide war on terrorist act. In the wake of the onslaughts it was clear that the American. “Public Interest” would be willing to set up with anything to happen the parties responsible and prevent hereafter onslaughts. Anything included non following with the Geneva Conventions.

The spirit of the Geneva Conventions are woven and intertwined with the US fundamental law. The Geneva Conventions besides protect our soldiers if they are to be captured. “The justification of anguish as a agency to pull out tactical information is the ground that regulations of warfare have developed over the centuries and why the United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions. The by and large accepted regulations of warfare forbid anguish and supply for the humane intervention of enemy prisoners. Without these regulations. all armed forces would be vulnerable to torment if captured by the enemy ; hence. all sides have a interest in restricting the usage of anguish. ( Pfiffner. Fall 2005. p. 317 ) This feeling was perceived by the Commander and Chief who took certain stairss that helped the corporate mind accept the effects of take downing our moral criterions in order to obtain the aim. On February 7th. 2002 President Bush signed a memoranda that stated: “Pursuant to my authorization as Commander in Chief. I determine that none of the commissariats of Geneva ( Internet Explorer. The Geneva Convention ) apply to our struggle with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the universe because among other grounds. Al Qaeda is non a High Contracting Party of Geneva” ( Bush 2002 ) .

This finding allowed the aggressive techniques of question used by the armed forces on suspected Al Qaeda captives at Guantanamo and subsequently in the autumn of 2003 at the prison at Abu Ghraib. ( Pfiffner. Fall 2005. p. 319 ) These commissariats perchance bent or fractured commissariats of the US fundamental law. The same fundamental law that these really same soldiers had sworn to protect. “ . ( NAME ) . do solemnly curse ( or affirm ) that I will back up and support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. foreign and domestic ; that I will bear true religion and commitment to the same ; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me. harmonizing to ordinances and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So assist me God” ( Powers. p. 1 ) This duality of orders is what I believe is at the bosom of the dislocation that allowed the anguish to go on at Abu Ghraib. The low superior persons who really performed the actions believed they were merely following orders. ( Pfiffner. Fall 2005. p. 324 ) .

They besides believed that there actions where sanctioned all the manner from the top and that these actions where in in line with the. “Public Interest” . This alliance with the perceived. “Public Interest. ” is what gave all participants cover to execute any agencies necessary to pull out the coveted terminals. In retrospect the persons responsible for executing the anguish acts where punished. Persons are finally responsible for their ain actions. Part of the ground the defence of “Just following orders. ” did non keep is because there was several persons at all ranks who at great personal and professional hazard. spoke out or did non follow with orders. Besides single failures there where many failures in supervising and bid and control that originated from the top. Fredrich stated in his essay that “without a chiseled and good worked out policy. duty becomes really hard to convey approximately. ( Stillman. 2009. p. 442 ) Ultimately it was the commanding officers and chief’s determination to change the fundamental law in the name of the War on Terrorism based on what he believed was best for the. ”Public Interest” that laid the model for these actions to happen.

Mentions

Morgan. D. F. . Green. R. . Robinson. K. S. . & A ; Shinn. C. W. ( 2008 ) . Foundations of Public Service. Armonk. New york: M. E. Sharpe. inc. Pfiffner. J. P. ( Fall 2005. Fall 2005 ) . Anguish and Public Policy [ Article ] . Public Integrity. 7 ( 4 ) . 313-329. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //pfiffner. gmu. edu/files/pdfs/Articles/Torture. % 20Public % 20Integrity. pdf Powers. R. ( ) . Curse of Enlistment. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //usmilitary. about. com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist. htm Public involvement. ( n. d. ) . In Wikipedia. Retrieved 01/21/13. from hypertext transfer protocol: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Public_interest Stillman. R. ( 2009 ) . Public Administration: Concepts and Cases ( 9th ed. ) . Boston. MA: Wadsworth.