The United States recently made the decision to send more special operation forces into Iraq and Syria to aid in battling ISIS. These forces were granted the authority to capture and interrogate ISIS members for intelligence. Fox News and CNN’s coverage of the decision diverged on the ethics and efficacy of these tactics.
Fox news views the decision through a lens of national security—the article states that “capturing senior ISIS leaders would also be an important component of the new assault force’s mission to learn more about the group’s structure and any affiliates.” Fox News rationalizes the necessity to capture and interrogate terrorists as a national imperative without acknowledging the possibility of illegality in the decision. CNN, on the other hand, focuses more so on the morality of U.S. forces being granted this authority. The article states that “there is no current framework for where such individuals could be held and questioned…it’s not clear what happens to them.” CNN questions the ethics of this decision, arguing that laws and regulations on U.S. interrogation methods exist in somewhat murky water.
CNN also acknowledges the “concerns inside the Pentagon that Iranian backed militias inside Iraq and Syria could see the U.S. forces as intrusive and could start targeting them.” In contrast, Fox implies that the threat of ISIS is more serious than originally thought, encouraging the use of the interrogation tactics. The article cites General Joseph Dunford who stated that “ISIS had not been contained by the U.S.-led coalition, contrary to President Obama’s assessment earlier this month.”
While CNN’s article emphasized the dangers and ethics of U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria, Fox’s article argued for the need of these forces and the granting of authority to capture and interrogate ISIS members as detrimental to national security.
I have acted with honesty and integrity in producing this work and am unaware of those who have not.