Is Torture Ever Justified?
Along with genocide, torture is the only crime that every state must punish, no matter who commits it or where or when, even during times of war. As laid down in treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ban on torture or any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is absolute. Even the United State’s very own constitutional speaks vaguely against the method of torture in the 8th Amendment prohibiting the use of “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Most civilized people are uncomfortable at the idea of prisoners on torture racks having their toenails pulled, or being shackled to a metal bed and electrocuted. But what if the prisoner was suspected of knowing the whereabouts of a ticking bomb, or the location of a terrorist cell’s hideout? Is torture justified then, regardless of the legality or the dehumanizing effect, during times of “imminent danger”? What about the CIA’s role in the practice of “extraordinary rendition” of suspected terrorist or informants to clandestine prisons in third world countries for “enhanced” interrogation, performed by CIA agents or the country’s agents?
Administration law layers have been cited arguing that members of groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not covered by the Geneva Convention’s ban on torture and other maltreatment because they are not a state party — they are labeled as “enemy combatants,” and thus awarded zero protection under international law. It wasn’t until the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamden in 2006 that all detainees were awarded full protection from all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as well as torture. However, reports continue to surface from places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, of severe beatings, water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and mock executions
Personally, torture should not be a practice employed by anyone, particularly the United States and other developed nations. It’s not only morally repugnant, it’s antithetical to centuries of societal advancement made towards human rights, and it’s illegal. Besides, the relative effectiveness of torture is questionable. Many critics and psychologists state that people will say anything to stop excruciating pain, including false information and even false confessions.
As the leading democratic nation in the world, the United States has an imperative to set high moral and ethical standards. The precedents we set can have dangerous implications worldwide. The standard we’re setting by flopping on the issue of torture is dangerous and must be taken more seriously. The method of torture is an archaic practice of tyrants and barbarians and should not be practiced. We’re just better than that.
I think there are basically two types of torture:
Torture as the policy should never exist, especially as part of America’s general strategy. If there is one thing I do not want the world associating with official US policy, it is torture. It’s bad PR, bad ethics, and a bad technique for regularly extracting information.
Torture as the exception can be a little more dicey, as in the so-called “ticking-bomb” scenario. First of all, this scenario is so incredibly farfetched that it almost doesn’t need to be addressed. It certainly doesn’t need an official policy making torture legal. If such a scenario were to arise, it would be up to the relevant individuals in charge to possibly use torture as a last-ditch method. But again, this scenario is so incredibly unlikely, that it should not be the focus of the debate that it has become (I watched the Republican candidates talk about all the different kinds of torture they would use in a “ticking-bomb” scenario once, and it was utterly absurd).
What matters is the first kind of torture – are we going to be the kind of country that habitually practices and condones torture? I sure hope not.
“First of all, this scenario is so incredibly farfetched that it almost doesn’t need to be addressed. If such a scenario were to arise, it would be up to the relevant individuals in charge to possibly use torture as a last-ditch method.”
Precisely. The lack of logical support for the “ticking-bomb” scenario is deep and jagged on the way down.
Suppose this incredibly unlikely situation were to arise, I don’t think any law or ethical code would prohibit any type of interrogation method from occurring.
The point is principle and precedent. The United States must act accordingly, because we are always in the spot light, especially now. The decisions we make will have far reaching consequences, potentially good or bad.
Regardless of the logic, people like Rudy Guilaiani and Mitt Romney supported the”enhanced” interrogation of suspects in the event of an imminent attack. Like the bombs are on their way and we need answers!
Dick Cheney, at one point, suggested that “dunking” (aka waterboarding) a terrorist to save lives was a “no brainier.”
I’m glad you said that David because the ticking-bomb justification is a fallacy of composition. And it applies something that is not just a part of the whole, but a ridiculously small part of the whole, to the whole. I’m glad that John McCain does not take the same approach to torture that Bush does.
Is war ever justified?
No Torture, No Secret Prison Camps, No Police State by Ron Paul
Before the US House of Representatives, March 11, 2008
Mr. Speaker: I rise in somewhat reluctant support of this vote to override the President’s veto of H.R. 2062, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008. Although I voted against this authorization when it first came to the floor, the main issue has now become whether we as a Congress are to condone torture as official U.S. policy or whether we will speak out against it. This bill was vetoed by the President because of a measure added extending the prohibition of the use of any interrogation treatment or technique not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations to the U.S. intelligence community. Opposing this prohibition is tantamount to endorsing the use of torture against those in United States Government custody.
Mr. Speaker, we have all read the disturbing reports of individuals apprehended and taken to secret prisons maintained by the United States Government across the globe, tortured for months or even years, and later released without charge. Khaled al-Masri, for example, a German citizen, has recounted the story of his incarceration and torture by U.S. intelligence in a secret facility in Afghanistan. His horror was said to be simply a case of mistaken identity. We do not know how many more similar cases there may be, but clearly it is not in the interest of the United States to act in a manner so contrary to the values upon which we pride ourselves.
My vote to override the President’s veto is a vote to send a clear message that I do not think the United States should be in the business of torture. It is anti-American, immoral and counterproductive.
Playing Devil’s advocate a lot here, but don’t people who infringe on the natural and constitutionally protected rights of American citizens forfeit a lot of their rights? I’m not even advocating torture as punishment, but as a means of extracting information, it may not be perfect, but it’s better than saying please. Mob bosses get away with everything from racketeering to money laundering to drug dealing to murder, all because their underlings are more afraid of them than the police. If it weren’t treated as such a horrible thing, it wouldn’t have to be done in secret, and cases of mistaken identity could be greatly reduced. Yes, the ticking bomb scenario is not a valid argument, but organized crime could very well be. The war on drugs, perhaps, out to be treated more like a war and less like a series of domestic disturbances. The war on terrorism is not a series of civil suits. We are talking about the lives and safety of thousands of people, not to mention the deliberate flaunting of our government and direct assaults on a lot of what our constitution stands for.
Once again, playing Devil’s advocate, but the debate seems to have centered around the “ticking bomb scenario”, and I’d like to hear the issue more broadly addressed.
Thanks for weighing in on the issue of torture, Michael. Let’s take a look at a few things you’ve said:
“don’t people who infringe on the natural and constitutionally protected rights of American citizens forfeit a lot of their rights?”
Sure, and they should be prosecuted. They should be given due process and a fair trial. Violating the constitution isn’t grounds for torturing them, ever.
“I’m not even advocating torture as punishment, but as a means of extracting information, it may not be perfect, but it’s better than saying please.”
So torture to extract information is justified? According to what pernicious logic is this claim justified? Because it’s more effective than saying “please?” That isn’t going to convince anyone, let alone me. It’s not only not perfect, as you say, but it’s wrong, it’s unjust, and it’s antithetical to all that we stand for — human rights, due process, and individual liberty.
“the war on drugs, perhaps, out to be treated more like a war and less like a series of domestic disturbances.”
So, we should torture drug cartel leaders into getting giving up more information? The “war” on drugs is such a legal and social fas paux. The drug problems in America need to be treated for what they are — health problems — and not as much a legal problem, because the situation isn’t improving under the status quo. And applying a “war” strategy to the “war on drugs,” including, as you seem to imply, information extrapolation torture, is wrong and will serve to further exacerbate the situation.
“the debate seems to have centered around the “ticking bomb scenario”, and I’d like to hear the issue more broadly addressed.”
Don’t you see here that torture is justified by many torture advocate politicians and policy makers for the sole purpose of the “ticking bomb scenario.” Without this qualifier, justification for torture has dismal support, at best. So, to discuss this issue more broadly, torture is awful, inefficient, antithetical to human rights, and a perverse way of dealing with difficult situations.
I agree totally with Michael Allen. The war on drugs should be treated like a war. They kill when ever in pleases them, and can fear no retribution from the police. Whole communities have been ravaged by these drug lords and they need to be stop preeminently. Also if necessary torture should be done when american lives are at stake. I don’t care if people get angry at us torturing a suspected terrorist. They would do the same to any american citizen or american soldier. They are not covered under the geneva convention, so we do as they do. Its better for them to fear us, and expect violence with violence.
thank!