FROM TIM OSMAN TO ABU GHRAIB: THE ENEMY'S CRIMINAL LAW AND THE LEGITIMATION OF THE USE OF TORTURE

Abstract

There is a growing interest in the phenomenon of terrorism, which has assumed a preponderant role in the international security agenda since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. From here we see a growing "demonization" of terrorism and its ideologies, and the discourses around security assume a securitizing perspective, in which the main focus is the fight against terrorism and the defense of the state, without the need for the means to give up. The conditions for torture to become part of the military techniques in the fight against terrorism, justified by gaps in the definition of the concept itself, and the lack of international criminal law perspectives that it covers, are thus met. There is a need for a deeper look at the security issues that are causing a change in the international paradigm, and which lead to a growing need to relegate international standards to the defense of citizens' freedoms, rights and guarantees. It is, in this sense, that we try to demonstrate that the States, in the attempt to resolve internal and external conflicts, end up widening the reach of the impact of these same conflicts or their threat. Therefore, we briefly define concepts, notably the concepts of security and terrorism, that codify the framework for our analysis. Following is an explanation of the Enemy's Criminal Law and its time frame after September 11, 2001, later referring to an appeal to torture, as legitimized in the light of Gunther Jakobs' theory. We conclude with a brief reference to the main international diplomas that regulate this matter.