Although torture is an illegal means of interrogation in many legal jurisdictions across the world, law enforcement agencies still practice it. In the United States, the emergence of terrorism attacks in the 21st century has led to the application of torture in the interrogation of terrorists and suspects to reveal pertinent information that is critical in the maintenance of national security.
Since the constitution is a supreme law that defines the application of torture, interrogation policies that the law enforcement agencies apply usually originate from outside the legal arena. For instance, Jack Bauer, a fictional actor in TV show 24 is a government agent who plays a significant role in influencing polices and legislations concerning interrogation.
Lithwick (2008) argues that, in the United States, Jack Bauer has significantly influenced the development of interrogation policy because many prominent lawyers often cite his recommendations (Para. 1).
Although many lawyers regard his recommendations, Jack Bauer is not a professional expert in interrogation because he is not an international lawyer, a behavioral psychologist or a counterterrorism expert. Therefore, examination of historical, social, political, cultural and technological aspect of torture indicates that interrogation techniques have no legal basis.
Throughout history, different nations and military organizations have employed torture as a means of interrogating persons or punishing criminals. Ideally, torture is an act of imposing physical, psychological and emotional pain on people so that they can yield to certain demands. Ancient Romans and Greeks employed torture in interrogating and punishing military detainees and strangers captured during the war.
Moreover, during the period of the slave trade, slave owners used torture to punish slaves who did not perform their roles as expected. Because of its effectiveness in interrogation, punishment and or revenge, dictatorial regimes employed torture to compel its political enemies to give some vital information or yield to the demands of state. However, Sands (2009) argues that torture is not only illegal but also an ineffective means of interrogation (Para. 8).
The emergence of democracy and human rights advocacy have led to the perception of torture as illegal and an inhuman means of interrogation or punishment that is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thus, the use of torture in interrogation has a historical basis rather than legal basis as reflected in its ancient application.
Torture is a social issue that affects the relationship between citizens and the law enforcement agencies. Normally, law enforcement agencies employ torture as a way of retrieving vital information from citizens by scaring or compelling them to participate effectively in community policing.
Thus, the use of torture portrays law enforcement agencies as inhuman and barbaric in that they are not sensitive to consequences of their torturous acts. Interrogation experts observe that torturing is an ineffective means of interrogation because retrieved information has low reliability because tortured suspects can give false information so that they do not undergo further torturing.
Costanzo and Gerrity (2009) view torture as an ineffective way of interrogation because it has negative psychological and social impact on both victims and perpetrators of torture (p.182). Victims and perpetrators will develop violent behaviors because torture makes them insensitive and inhuman. Hence, torture has social basis relative to the legal basis because it compels the society to adapt violent behaviors that law enforcement officers and victims develop.
Torture is a political tool that various regimes across the world employ in effecting their political ideologies and influencing national decisions. In essence, torture is a political crime of obedience where a regime formulates and issues policies regarding national issues compelling political leaders to support or risk facing torture. Torture, as a crime of obedience, occurs when one opposes authorities in case of victims.
However, in case of perpetrators, it involves the obedience to instructions from authorities. Kelman (2005) asserts that, though torture is both illegal and immoral in the society, perpetrators perform it in response to orders from authorities (p.126). Hence, torture provides the means by which political authorities can exercise their power and instill fear on citizens.
In the regimes that do not have democracy or uphold human rights, torture is a political tool of frustrating political opponents and maintaining power. According to Gomez-Barris (2007), the state formulated the rhetoric of civil war so that it could justify the violation of human rights by torturing civilians (p.88). Thus, it means that torture is a political tool of oppression that various governments employ in undermining human rights.
From the cultural perspective, torture is an issue that touches the morality of the society and different cultures all over the world. Most cultures regard torture as an inhuman act that violates not only societal norms but also moral codes since it promotes violent behavior that is insensitive to human life. Different cultures perceive human life as having inherent dignity, which should not be subject to brutal acts such as torture.
However, cultures that do not promote democracy are more likely to tolerate torture compared to democratically mature cultures. According to Luban (2005), torture emanates from liberal culture and ends in the development of torture culture (p.1427). Prior to terrorism attacks in 2001, the Americans abhorred torture. However, the emergence of terrorism threats has transformed the liberal culture of the Americans to cherish torture as an effective means of interrogating terrorists in spite of its illegality.
Because of advancement in technology, law enforcement agencies have invented several interrogation techniques to enhance the effectiveness of interrogation. Since terrorists pose enormous threats to national security, the United States has formulated and adopted various interrogation techniques that inflict physical, psychological and emotional pain on individuals.
Cesereanu (2006) argues that electric torture is an effective technique of interrogation because it can apply electric shock on intimate parts of the body such as breasts and genitals, as well as causing both psychological and physical pain (p.1). Electric torture involves the use of varied instruments such as electrodes, electric truncheons and electric cables.
Water boarding is another interrogating technique that does not cause any physical harm as it entails partial suffocation of a person. However, it inflicts a fair deal of psychological, emotional and physical pain. The United States soldiers mainly employed water boarding in torturing terrorist suspects in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons.
Moreover, medical torture is another form of torture that entails the use of drugs to produce pain without any physical harm. Hence, law enforcement agencies are inventing new interrogating techniques that are torturous, but do not cause any physical harm so that human right advocates do not realize their impacts on victims.
Despite the fact that torture is both an illegal and immoral act in society, different states continue to torture suspects and prisoners using various interrogating techniques that have no legal basis. Since the society perceives torture as a violation of human rights, the United States, for a long period, viewed torture as a barbaric and inhuman act.
However, the emergence of terrorism has compelled the United States to employ different forms of interrogative techniques such as water boarding and electricity. Although interrogative experts perceive torture as an ineffective means of interrogation, Jack Bauer, who has no any interrogative expertise, is tremendously influential in the development of interrogative policies in the United States. Therefore, torture has historical, social, political, technological and cultural basis rather than a legal basis.
Reference List
Cesereanu, R. (2006). An Overview of Political Torture in the Twentieth Century the Microcosm of Torture Instruments. Metabasis, 3(1), 1-11.
Costanzo, M., & Gerrity, E. (2009). The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as An Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate. Social Issues and Policy Review, 3(1), 179-210.
Gomez-Barris, M. (2007). Torture Sees and Speaks: Guillermo Nunezs Art in Chiles Transition. A Journal on Social History and Literature in Latin America, 5(1), 86-107.
Kelman, H. (2005). The Policy Context of Torture: A Social-Psychological Analysis. International Review of Red Cross, 87(857), 123-134.
Torture during war can be defined as a forceful acquisition of information from a prisoner of war who could either be a solider, a spy or an ally to the enemy. Vital information is often retrieved through the use of threat of physical harm, psychological harm or use of drugs. Physical harm includes beating, shock treatment, starvation, breaking of extremities, piercing, among others (Levinson, 2004).
Psychological torture on the other hand uses annoying sounds like music, crying babies or dripping water, threats to either the prisoner or their family, showing them grotesque images, imprisonment in a dark room, embarrassment of the prisoner like stripping them, humiliation etc.
Drugs used in torture are of various kinds, some of which are supposed to exert extreme pain to a prisoner by stimulation of the nervous system. Other drugs like hallucinogens are meant to make a prisoner semi-lucid and mellow, giving them a sense of ease and a false impression of security hence facilitating an atmosphere for them to surrender the information they possess (McCoy, 2006).
This research paper will generally focus on the application of waterboarding as a form of torture, the implications of war relative to the executives in Governments and the soldiers in the field and eventually provide a solution which would justify the use of waterboarding based on ethical business and policy principles. To better understand this, it is imperative to arrive at the essence of waterboarding and its application.
Waterboarding is the intentional submersion of a prisoner in water or the dousing of water over the covered face of a prisoner to give them the sensation of drowning. Technical arguments have over the years been raised as to whether waterboarding should be categorized as torture.
Those against the categorization of waterboarding argue that it is not physically painful, it does not result to any injury nor does it stimulate the pain receptors in the nervous system (Greenberg, 2006). They argue that for conditions of torture to be satisfied, pain and injury have to be involved.
Therefore, if there is no bodily harm whatsoever, how can waterboarding be torture? It is irrefutably true that waterboarding does not lead to physical injury but the human body through basic instincts rejects the engulfment of water. Therefore, waterboarding acts against the fundamental human impulse of survival leading to the intense fear associated with this practice (Greenberg, 2006).
Additionally, waterboarding and indeed other forms of torture invoke a sense of helplessness to the prisoner giving them the impression that their torturer has control over their body and life (The NSA, 2004).
Hence, even though waterboarding is not associated with physical pain or any form of physical strain the technique acts upon the primal human survival reflexes making the experience extremely fearsome, horrifying and uncomfortable. Consequently, waterboarding yields similar results to those of torture through the inducement of fear and mental distress; hence it is tantamount to torture.
Implications of war
Soldiers
It is certain that the conditions that are prevalent during conflict and war are totally different from the conditions in tranquil settings. For example, the war in Afghanistan has created a totally different environment that is contrary to one which was there previously. U.S soldiers have to cope with the new environment, new territory and new climate, a stark contrast to the one they left at home1.
It is well know that the operating conditions are hostile and it is especially difficult to differentiate the enemy from a civilian. U.S soldiers are constantly attacked with mortar shells and snipers, some of whom take refuge and disguise in civilian territory (Mackey & Miller, 2004). The point here is that war presents conditions of extreme confusion, fear and uncertainty2.
No one has control over their lives or their actions bearing in mind the fact that soldiers go where they are ordered to and do as ordered regardless of the prevailing circumstances (Greenberg, 2006).
Therefore, soldiers on a broader scale rely on decisions made by individuals who may not be present in the war zone and the decisions may be based on inconclusive or inaccurate information that is not concurrent with the real situation in the field (Walzer, 2000). This puts the soldiers at an even grater risk by reducing them to minor accessories to the greater scheme of things.
Government executives
On the other hand, executives in governments have the responsibility to come up with concrete plans to ensure the triumphant execution of the current mission and the safe extraction of the soldiers.
Like in any democracy, the reigning government will always have opposition, a group of people who are against the war and another group of people who believe that there is a better method to achieve the goals of the war, and in most cases the opposition is as powerful as it is convincing (Greenberg, 2006). Warring governments often face stiff opposition from within and such opposition can greatly affect the end result of a war3.
In is of no doubt that war is an expensive process in terms finance, property and human life (McCoy, 2006). The money used to fund a war and the lives lost during that war are both accountable to the government executives no matter the outcome (Levinson, 2004).
It is therefore of paramount importance that the war benefits a nation to represent the losses acquired so as to facilitate the permanence of a stable and reputable government. To this respect, a warring government will take all necessary measures to prove to its citizens and the opposition that the war was not only beneficial, but in fact necessary4.
To achieve clemency the government relies heavily on intelligence, information gathered from the enemys side pertaining to their plans, weapons, attack, motive and capacity (The NSA, 2004). This information s vital for the success of a governments war plans and its accurate acquisition is highly rewarded5, making torture the best option for information retrieval from uncooperative prisoners of war.
For example, the British government has been facing a dilemma regarding the war in Afghanistan. The former Prime Minister Tony Blair had pledged a considerable quantity of British troops to assist the U.S military in combating the Taliban6.
The British public and powerful lobby groups however saw the war as an unnecessary venture and called for the withdrawal of the British troops since Britain was neither under an impending threat nor directly affected by the Taliban and for that reason it was not their war.
The successive Prime Minister Gordon Brown faced mounting pressure to recall the troops, but the government executives in support of the war are persistent in their assertiveness (Mackey & Miller, 2004).
Their argument is simple, by withdrawing their troops, Britain will have conceded defeat to the Taliban and hence expose themselves to international derision and also give the Taliban an opportunity to ostensibly emerge victorious allowing them greater control over Afghanistan(McCoy, 2006). Besides, withdrawal of the British army will mean that the British troops that passed away during the war fought and died in vain7.
The waterboarding quandary
The waterboarding advocacy point of view is as credible as the argument perpetuated by those opposed to the relevance of the interrogation technique during conflict8. Depending on the tangent of perspective, waterboarding and torture may be viewed as barbaric practices or necessary measures of espousing security against foreign and domestic threats9.
Waterboarding is a non fatal interrogation technique which bestows upon the victim a sense of drowning and has been reputed to be a very efficient interrogation technique against hardcore criminal elements (Levinson, 2004). The subject of torture is sensitive and marred with controversy for only a thin blurry line separates the domain of human rights and that of intelligence especially during war (Greenberg, 2006).
Historical precedents reveal circumstances that have led nations to regard torture in order to establish posture and ascertain security for their citizens. Waterboarding in particular has generated vast reactions, some terming it as inhumane while others regard it as a necessary interrogation technique during war10.
This research will take an open ended approach and examine both sides of the argument regarding the application of waterboarding during war.
Intelligence
Acquisition of accurate information and intelligence during war can mean the difference between defeat and victory11. Intelligence can be procured from different sources like spies, sympathizers, allies or prisoners of war. Prisoners of war encapsulate civilians, foreign spies, sympathizers and soldiers12.
Spies and soldiers will in most cases have tactical and strategic information that is useful to their captors but these individuals are coached to never reveal their secrets through intensive training on how to withstand interrogation and crude torture method (Walzer, 2000).
Information such as, but not limited to, scheduled attacks, infantry capacity, types of weapons and intelligence sources is a profound prerequisite if the captors want to be triumphant in the war and also gain leverage by being in a position to anticipate their enemy(Levinson, 2004). To attain the information, waterboarding will inevitably be used on disobliging subjects (Greenberg, 2006).
The argument is that regardless of human rights, war zones only bear a two dimension facet which is killing or being killed (McCoy, 2006). If the enemy gains hold of the other sides intelligence first, they will undoubtedly use it against them. For example, Germany suffered a great defeat in 1940 after their plans leaked out to the allied forces13.
After realizing that their secret plans had been revealed, they developed a new strategy which was also acquired by the allied forces. The end result was Germany was defeated in its attempt to subdue France after receiving a massive number of casualties due to the information provided to the allies14. It is therefore imperative to always anticipate the enemy and to do so; information must be acquired no matter the cost.
Contenders to the ideology of intelligence acquisition through waterboarding give several reasons as to why the viability of such a technique is not sustainable. The first rationale is that prisoners could easily divulge false information that may be used to lure soldiers into a trap (Mackey & Miller, 2004).
An example is given during World War II when an American unit apprehended a German soldier who after intense interrogation gave vague directions as to the location of their camp and their capacity in terms of infantry and artillery15. Finding him of little use afterwards, the unit set the German free and cautiously preceded to the direction they had been versed with.
Unknown to the unit, the German solder had misinformed them, giving them a much lower figure than was present. The German soldier furthermore informed his camp of the approaching American soldiers, as of which they made the necessary arrangements, setting up ambush points a few kilometers from their camp.
The American troops walked into a well armed waylay that led to the fatality of more than two thirds of the troops belonging to that unit16. It is therefore quite likely that a prisoner can lie to his captors and there are certainly soldiers who undergo specialized training that teaches them on how to deceive their captors when tortured.
Another argument is that waterboarding may not be effective since its extensive use and wide reputation has created a deeper understanding for the technique17.
By understanding the fear and emotions that are conjured through waterboarding, solders can be indoctrinated with the conscious aptitudes to counter and suppress the fear and emotion that surface during waterboarding, making the application of this technique void (McCoy, 2006).
Humane form of interrogation
Adherents of the waterboarding interrogation method argue that the process is not lethal and therefore in no way does it exterminate or maim a prisoner. The advantage is that a prisoner can be held for an indefinite period of time in order to ascertain the truth of his information in comparison to other intelligence sources18.
The prisoner can also facilitate the restoration in of missing pieces of lost intelligence that may be destroyed during the copious chaotic junctures correlated with war. Furthermore, the prisoner can valuable in deciphering intercepted codes of transmitted information given that such codes are exclusively implicit to rival factions19.
Contrary to other torture techniques, waterboarding does not work on the physique and therefore it does not wear down a prisoner (Levinson, 2004).
A captives strength can for that reason be utilized when the need arises for example in performing manual work like maintenance or construction. Other torture techniques will more often than not incapacitate a prisoner through intensive bleeding, broken extremities or fatigue (The NSA, 2004).
This could be of great disadvantage especially when attacked since injured prisoners will either slow down a unit or be left behind without revealing satisfactory amount of information20.
A captive can also be deprogrammed and coerced to join the subjugating infantry where they can be of use as personnel or as spies since they know the territory and the enemys tactics (McCoy, 2006). Waterboarding is therefore considered a more humane form of torture during war since it keeps the victims alive and causes no physical impairmenti.
Human rights activists and numerous anti-torture movements have for a long time been against any form of forceful interrogation techniques including waterboarding. Their argument is that torture (waterboarding) is inhumane since it violates several human rights provisions including the Fifth Amendment (Walzer, 2000).
Every human being has the freedom to speak to whomever they choose whenever they choose regardless of the prevailing circumstances including war (Greenberg, 2006). It is the allowance of these choices that makes individuals human beings rather than slaves21.
By forcefully compelling someone to speak or act against their will, a torturer acts against the law and therefore needs to be indicted22.
Justice
There has always been a misconception in the way torture is generalized and morally categorized in regard to war and terrorism. It is valuable to note that the war on terrorism has its threat but the urgency to nullify the threat during war far surpasses the exigency in fighting terrorism23. Unlike the war on terrorism, the threat during war in the battle field is pressing, present and precarious (Greenberg, 2006).
There are limited options on the course of action to take in a war as opposed to a democratic environment but the underlying principle of these actions is to stay alive and permanently invalidate the danger (Mackey & Miller, 2004). For instance, the Supreme Court of Israel has a provision in their law termed the necessity defense that can be elicited to protect tortures against criminal liability in cases of an impending threat.
With this in mind, it is tremendously implausible that a prisoner of war will face trial or a fair hearing24. If for example a U.S plane is shot down by a warring faction over hostile territory and the pilot, cargo or passengers are valuable in a sense that they need to be retrieved, soldiers have to follow through on that order. To successfully execute their mission they have to reconnoiter the area and come up with a strategy.
However, with the existence of a defiant detainee, they may be obliged to use waterboarding so as to obtain the exact location of what they are after and the route with least resistance25. Waterboarding is therefore essential during war to minimize the number of casualties and maximize the success rate of missions26.
The waterboarding antagonistic argument regarding morality and justice is that the technique is dissipated and unreasonable in particular during war. The reason is that captives never receive a fair hearing to verify their misdeeds (Greenberg, 2006).
A civilian can be arrested on suspicion of being an emissary or a rival soldier and tortured without conclusive investigations and the hurried manner of activities during war makes such an occurrence highly probable (Walzer, 2000).
Subjective conclusions may be effortlessly arrived at during war where decisions may be expatiated by differences in opinion; language barriers and personal attitude for instance distrust, hate, frustration or anger (Greenberg, 2006).
If by chance a rival solider is seized, more often than not the soldier holds very little useful information since many factions minimize the information they share with soldiers to limit the revelation of their plans in case soldiers are captured (Walzer, 2000). In most cases, crucial tactical and strategic information is only known to senior government officials and army commanders who are usually absent from combat27.
Junior solders are kept on a needto-know basis and thus the information they have is usually vague and inconclusive (Greenberg, 2006). The argument is that even with intense interrogation and waterboarding, a rival soldier can only depart with the information he is privy to and will in the long run fabricate the truth if interrogation persists.
Proposed solution
Taking into account the various view points made available by the supporters and the antagonists of waterboarding, a solid conjuncture would be to uphold the interrogation technique during conflict due to the propensity of violence in times of war28. However, certain provisions offered by the challengers of torture should be effected to demystify the intent and result of waterboarding.
Under international law, torture is illegal and its proved application can lead to conviction (The NSA, 2004). However, in the adverse situation whereby a nation is confronted by a significant threat, incidents of torture may be allowed to counter the threat29. To do justify its application, sound ethical business and policy principles should be incorporated.
The suspect has to be proven guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime and evidence should be advanced to substantiate the claim that he possesses crucial information (Greenberg, 2006). An argument should be made stating why the information to be retrieved from the suspect will be of vital importance to the nation in order to obtain a court order authorizing torture of the suspect (Walzer, 2000).
Amendments need to be made to the law to specify the prerequisites for torture as well as establish standard limits in respect to the time taken to interrogate and method of interrogation, while taking into account the general health of the suspect (Levinson, 2004).
Conclusion
Torture is without a doubt one of the most repulsive modes of information retrieval present. It goes against all fundamental human rights by inflicting acute pain, fear and distress to the victim even where there is the possibility of him or her being innocent. However, in considering the intensity of war, it is straightforward to comprehend the justification of torture.
Torture and in specific waterboarding, is a necessary evil that bears immense influence, proficient enough to offset the equilibrium of any conflict. An imminent threat is a definite precursor to war and through torture; the mechanisms threat can be adequately understood and a hiatus induced.
The primary objective of any war is to annihilate the threat with the least number of casualties in the fastest time possible and torture facilitates effective accomplishment this objective (Levinson, 2004). The nuance of interrogation should be closely monitored to corroborate that excessive force is not imposed on the victims, after all they are still human beings and their rights should be respected to a certain extent.
Waterboarding is functional both in its effect on the victim and in the successful retrieval of information due to the fact that it works on the survival instincts imposing an intense amount of fear yet keeping the victim alive and in normal physical condition. It is consequently justifiable to use waterboarding in times of war chiefly because perceiving the enemy through intelligence allows for enhanced anticipation both in attack and defense.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. - Sun Tzuii
Footnotes
1 Mackey, Chris and Miller, Greg, The Interrogators, 76
2 Ibid.
3 Greenberg, Karen. The Torture Debate in America. , 112.
4 McCoy, Alfred, A Question of Torture. , 54.
5 Ibid
6 Levinson, Sanford. Torture: A Collection. , 44.
7 Greenberg, Karen, The Torture Debate in America. , 92.
8 Mackey, Chris and Miller, Greg, The Interrogators, 120-121
9 Levinson, Sanford, Torture: A Collection. , 76.
10 Greenberg, Karen, The Torture Debate in America. , 98.
11 Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars. , 32.
12 Ibid, 49.
13 ibid
14 Ibid, 51.
15 McCoy, Alfred. A Question of Torture. , 75.
16 Ibid, 80.
17 McCoy, Alfred. A Question of Torture. , 84.
18 Mackey, Chris and Miller, Greg. The Interrogators, 132.
19 McCoy, Alfred, A Question of Torture. , 111.
20 Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars. , 68.
21 Ibid, 83.
22 National Security Archive. The Interrogation Documents.
The former U.S Attorney General Michael Mukasey is reported to have said that there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques, and for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenialI dont think it would be responsible of me to do that.
23 Mackey, Chris and Miller, Greg. The Interrogators, 49.
24 Levinson, Sanford. Torture: A Collection. 97.
25 Mackey, Chris and Miller, Greg. The Interrogators, 143.
26 Greenberg, Karen, The Torture Debate in America. , 102.
27 Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars. , 197.
28 Ibid, 31.
29 Greenberg, Karen, The Torture Debate in America. , 129.
Endnotes
Three well known al-Qaeda top organizers have been interrogated through waterboarding the most prominent Khalid Sheik Mohammed who was the chief orchestrator of the September 11 twin tower bombing that killed more than 2000 people an injured more than 7000. Through the application of waterboarding, Khalid Sheik Mohammed was able to surrender the names of his allies who helped in the funding and execution of the bombing and this information consequently led to the apprehension of six terror suspects who could have been perpetuating acts of terror were they free.
An opinion poll carried out in early 2007 by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press asking the question, Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified? revealed that 29% of Americans felt that torture was never justified, 25% thought it was rarely justified, 31% said torture was sometimes justified whereas 12% felt that torture was often justified. It is evident that even though Americans have their reservations on torture, a majority of them are mildly comfortable with the practice.
References
Greenberg, K. (2006). The torture debate in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. (2004). Torture: A collection. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, C., & Miller, G. (2004). The interrogators: Inside the secret war against Al Qaeda. New York, NY: Little, Brown.
McCoy, A. (2006). A question of torture: CIA interrogation, from the Cold War to the war on terror. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Co.
United States, the original power in the word, adopts the miserable harsh interrogation and torture of the suspected terrorists and detainees. U S being suspicious about the sustainability and continuity of their position as a superior power resorts to such mal treatment. Reports say that in the United States of America the suspected terrorists who are captured will have to suffer a hell lot from the hands of people in authority. Even though there is ruling in favor of such persons the authorities never care for it.
United states completely forget the age old human values when it comes to the treatment of the suspected terrorists and detainees. Ethics and morality have fully been discarded by the United States in the treatment of such people. There will be a number of negative impacts on those who undergo such worst treatment.
Torture and harsh interrogation has become very prevalent in many highly developed countries especially in the United States.. The people in authority never care for morality and ethics of an action they take. They consider torture and harsh interrogation as the best method to be adopted to deal with suspected terrorists and detainees.
The treatment of suspected criminals in the United States is much harsh than in any other country and is with out any regard for morality and ethics. Harsh interrogation and torture are considered as the suitable methods to treat the suspected terrorists. The idea of giving them such mal treatment is not at all advisable in the modern society where technology has advanced so much.
In modern day America justifies the torture of suspected terrorists. America, in order to be secure, takes very rigorous actions against the suspected enemies. In some cases, we determine that individuals we have captured pose a significant threat, or may have intelligence that we and our allies need to have to prevent new attacks.
Many are al Qaeda operatives or Taliban fighters trying to conceal their identities, and they withhold information that could save American lives. In these cases, it has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly [sic], questioned by experts, and when appropriate prosecuted for terrorist acts. (Bush).
The detainees from the war of terrorism have certain rights and protection. But this is only for name sake in most cases. The detainees have to undergo a period of harsh procedures to get liberated. But at times the court of law comes for the rescue of them. But even this wont be much helpful as the officials would be against the idea of passing bills in favor them and it creates confusion with regard to the arrest and detention of such suspected culprits.
Washington In a stinging rebuke to President Bushs anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges. (Sherman). But such highhanded ruling would not always be there to assist the detainees. Persons in power, in order to secure their country from any anti social elements will have to take severe anti terrorist measures.
As the world has undergone sea changes during the period there should be some kind of amendments in the defense policies of the state. It is high time there occurred a change in the defense policies of the state. It is time for the policy makers to rethink and restructure the existing defense laws and policies.
The defense policies shaped by the Geneva Convention and the Bill of Rights need to be revised and updated. No system and laws regarding the defense policies are perfect. All policies related to defense require amendment and modification as they become obsolete and outdated even in a short span of time.
The harsh interrogation techniques are those techniques aimed at making the prisoner speak the truth by inflicting pain and humiliation. Under this system the prisoner or the suspected culprit is forced by all means to reveal the truth. The techniques used under the harsh interrogation system are
The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoners face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. (Ross and Esposito). These techniques of interrogation which are considered as corrective actually weaken the body and mind of the convict. In case the convict is not a real culprit the adverse impact that harsh interrogation can bring upon him would be disastrous. And the application of harsh interrogation technique can do more harm to the United States in terms of intelligence and national reputation.
Conclusion
From these reports it is understood that the torture and harsh treatment of suspected terrorists and detainees have considerably increased over the years. Such persons are treated with out any concern and regard for their moral well being. It may be due to the fact that in the modern there is no regard for the age old human values. Ethics and morality have become things of the past for the United States in relation to the treatment of such anti social elements.
Today people are indifferent to the concerns of others. These values were plainly seen in the people of past generation and all had great concern for others. Man as social being should possess the human values of ethics and morality. Today people are devoid of these two values. It may be expected that within no time the United States will take a move which will certainly help the detainees and the suspected terrorists in some way or other.
Work Cited
Bush, George W. President Discusses Creation of Military Commissions to Try Suspected Terrorists. The Whitehouse. 2006. Web.
The Convention Against Torture is an international treaty, the primary purpose of which is to prevent cruel behavior. States A and B cannot reach an agreement about this Convention for an extensive period, which is why state A decides to submit the case for adjudication. This paper will examine the dispute between states A and B, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) based on its statute, and the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in this case.
With the dispute between state A and state B, it is essential to consider the issue of jurisdiction. This concept describes the official power granted to a party that can make decisions. Therefore, for state A to have a decision that will be legal, it has to submit the case to the correct jurisdiction. In Article 30 of the Convention against Torture, it is stated that one of the State parties can present the case for arbitration in case a dispute with other parties cannot be resolved through negotiations. Arbitration implies engaging an arbiter who can independently assess the case and make a conclusion based on the unbiased and objective opinion regarding the implications of the discussed Convention. Hence, the article confirms that ICJ can review a dispute case if the states are unable to negotiate, however, there are some specifics to this case that will be examined in detail.
It is important to understand the jurisdiction of the ICJ to evaluate whether the solution of state A is justified. ICJ can provide both binding and non-binding rulings, with the latter serving as advice for the parties. The bindings rulings are for controversial cases between states if the two parties agree on submitting the verdict to the court. In this case, it appears that only state A decided to present the case to ICJ, and state B was not engaged in the process.
Based on the ICJs statute, the principle of consent is the crucial matter that allows the court to review cases. Hence, both states A and B have to agree to send the case to the court. However, an issue arises when considering Article 30 of the Convention, where it is stated that any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice. This is true for the cases when parties cannot reach an agreement when choosing an arbiter for six months. Therefore, ICJ does not possess the jurisdiction to review the case because state B did not agree to submit the case in the first place.
The role of the ICC is to prosecute individuals for crimes against humanity. ICC could play a role in this case if state B committed crimes that have to be reviewed under tribunal. However, not all states recognize the jurisdiction of ICJ. Since individual states can refer cases to this court, state A can use this opportunity, however, only if it aims to prosecute an individual or an institution.
To conclude, in the case of a dispute between parties A and B, the ICC cannot be the arbiter because the states have to hold negotiations to determine the arbiter that will be suitable for both parties. This is consistent with the ISJs statute, which highlights the importance of participation of both parties in the case. However, Article 30 of the Convention allows one of the states to submit the case to ICJ if an agreement regarding the arbiter was not made. Thus, state A should negotiate with state B to choose an arbiter, and only if an agreement is not reached submit the case to ICJ.
Torture is the infliction of an aggressive action of one individual or group of individuals, against another individual, who has not granted his permission to this aggression. Even if permission were granted, or contracted, some rights are inalienable.
The State is an institution that arises, either spontaneously, or through design. To exert power, individuals, wield the levers of power, and these are maintained through the use of force.
Who is the rightful owner of self? The individual, or others, in this case, the State? If I can with my mind provide argumentation, I have to be the owner of self, as it proves as a matter of definition that I possess control, and thus rightful ownership of self. If someone else, for example, the State, possessed ownership, or control of my mind, they could prevent argumentation. As this is not the case, I own, rightfully, myself.
As I own myself, which are property rights, if I commit violence against another individual, I violate his property rights. Thus, the State, which does not own property rights against individuals, cannot commit violence against individuals without violating their property rights.
Could the State assert, that to prevent hundreds or thousands of deaths, the torture of an individual is justified? This must pass the test of the universal rule, which essentially states, that to be valid, it must be true in all circumstances, for all individuals. This justification cannot pass the test. This assertion comes with one important qualification: that the individual be innocent of any transgressions against other individuals property rights. The establishment of this innocence provides for the principle of due process. Only after the due process has found guilt, can punishment be allocated. The allocation of punishment must be proportional to the crime. It cannot call for the death penalty as punishment for minor theft, for example.
The Columbus complex argues that if I arrive first, I can lay claim to all available resources. The State employs this argument in circumventing the rule arguing for universal truth. The State argues that as the sole individual, the interpretation and or/making of the law, allows the arrogation to itself the justification to adopt the for the greater good argument, and the suspension of due process if the circumstances warrant it.
The right to property is self-evident. If no rights to property existed, the human race would cease to exist, as, the food that I just consumed, could be claimed to not be my individual property, but the property of all, preventing the consumption of food by any individual. This would mean extinction. This could not be a valid ethic for humans.
Property is acquired through first usage and transformation, by contract, or by gift. Property is gained through transformation, through the application of labour and skills, to transform natural resources into a good or service, that possesses exchange value or consumption value.
There are only two ways to gather wealth and property. The first is through the path just described. The second is through political means. This is the path of the coercive expropriation of property rightfully belonging to the individual.
Justification for torture or the use of torture, by the State fails on two grounds: first, its employees cannot pass the universal rule, and second, even if it could pass this test, the State cannot lay claim to property rights in excess of those allocated to. each individual.
The government should only use torture when it is needed because if they use it and are found to be wrong with their decision then the government would be in trouble.There are a lot of countries that look at torture as a solution, but for the U.S. government torture can account as a burden when lawsuits are pushed against the government for the wrong accusation. Some people have seen torture and think it is wrong right away, but for others ‘Life-saving torture is not cruel. It is … morally justifiable.'(Mirko Bagaric) Mirko Bagaric is a perfect example of pro-torture because he thinks if torture will save innocent lives then it should be allowed, but if it doesn’t then we have to accept our failure. Torture is seen as a way of being compassionate. On the other hand, torture is inflicting pain and suffering. Torture has not provided the correct answer for the U.S. government, therefore it shouldn’t be used unless it is the last resort.
Torture is the inflicting of severe pain onto a person. A lot of countries have torture as a solution. It is seen to be able to save thousands of lives, but by hurting someone. If the government shall use torture it should be because no result has been found while using other ways to solve the issue. A lot of people support it because it is saving innocent lives. On the other hand,the government could be hurting innocent lives to save others. Torture isn’t a natural form of interrogation, but the excessive stem of it, which allows for information to be derived from people through pain. It isn’t the opportunity to hurt someone, but the opportunity to prevent a future attack or even to find someone. Torture has been reliable, but in recent years it has proven to not help. It isn’t all the time when it is inflicted, but when it is it is for a good caused. Although it can be proven to help in some areas. Overall torture is wrong and shouldn’t be permitted. Barack Obama has took away U.S. torture because it isn’t a pull factor of the country, instead a shove away.
Furthermore, torture is reliable. Innocent lives could be at stake and if torture is what the government has to do to save them, why not do it? Torture can be very momentus because it can allow someone to live or someone to die, but it is also necessary. Having the “right to life”(Mirko Bagaric) is given to a person as they are born. Torture prevents that right from being snatched away by such terrorist activities; September 11, 2001, the twin towers were attacked by the Al-Qaeda in a bombing activity. Problems can’t always be solved with torture, but if it can some people will support it. Torture is often viewed in a negative way, but for some people if one life can save thousands of other lives then they wouldn’t mind making that sacrifice.
On the other hand, pain and suffering isn’t something a normal human being would like to inflict on another. It also doesn’t bring pleasing thoughts and in some cases makes people ache or fear it because as humans we automatically think of pain, suffering, or havoc on one person or multiple people’s bodies, minds, or even souls. Torture isn’t justified because if the government used it and was wrong they wouldn’t be able to cover it up. The palestinian authority used torture in wrongful ways and so many people saw it as an act of immaturity and non-human like. Although torture can be reliable, it shouldn’t be used unless it is the last resort because then the government would have tried all the other possible ways to save lives without hurting another, even if they were the one who caused the havoc.
Torture doesn’t just make it seem like the government is choosing the wrong decision, but it also makes the U.S. look bad. Most people in the U.S. see other countries that enable torture such as communist countries and think they are evil. So when the U.S. government decides to use it the people look at them as if they are evil. To put suffering onto one person for the protection of others and then fail is the worst position that any government can be put in. Although torture may extract information, not all torture is reliable. One issue of a failed attempt to save lives is Abu Ghraib, a prison facility in Iraq. Abu Ghraib tortured many of the prison inmates to get information about the Taliban, future terrorist attacks, or even locations of certain criminals. In the midst of doing so the prison was shut down because no reliable information was given. These acts of the prison were seen as horrible and unnecessary, since nothing was being accomplish.
Likewise, after the 9-11 attack the U.S. government searched for certain criminals and tortured those who wouldn’t give up any information. In the end it seemed the captured criminals didn’t know anything, so they had nothing to say. This portrayed America as the villian and many people believed the government should be punish, so NATO(North Atlantic Treaty Organization) brought the government to court and decided the U.S. shouldn’t be allowed to use torture unless it is the last possible answer to use. Many people believe torture is just cruel or inhumane. Although it is both cruel and inhumane, it helps the country by allowing them to get criminals off the streets if they could. It isn’t every day that someone is getting hurt by the government in the many forms of torture, but it is everyday when the people make up their minds about it.
Another example is the television series 24. 24 shows a time limit that any country can be put on in order to save people’s lives. In the show a woman is being tortured because she is seen as a possible terrorist or knows about possible terrorist attacks. As a result she was innocent and went back to her daily life not knowing what to expect from the people who are suppose take care of her. Usually torture is seen used by “villains”(David Danzig), but now it seems the people who think of their government as “heroes”(David Danzig) no longer do because it is now the good people who are enabling such actions to be taken. The show has promoted many forms of torture. More and more people who are pro-torture realize it isn’t about whether the government can save lives through torture, but it is more about how the government saved the lives.
Finally, if torture can be limited to the last solution then more people would be in favour of it because they have seen the government try everything they could. It strikes a harsh opinion in people about their own country when they see the actions they took because pain isn’t a good feeling and although torture is put on the criminal, the country feels it ten times worse. Whether or not the citizens can trust the government is based off of their actions, so if they see cruelty or even causes of suffering trust is lost and rebellious attitudes arise with riots. Torture has its many forms. One form is racism. In the time of Martin Luther King Jr. many rebellious attitudes formed and protests against the government took place. Meanwhile, the government had laid back and let it happened and allowed time to tell when they would announce peace.
In conclusion, there are many things to fear about torture, but the main thing is what the world will become. If enough people realize that the government of many countries have used torture in a wrongful way then people will rise up against them. There will be domination against the countries or civil wars could break out. People will lose their heads and create a new order. So if this type of future can be prevented, then do something about it. Life is to valuable to let it go to waste by the hands of torture. Not only will people break their government, but they will struggle to build a new government from the bottom up and could possibly result in world domination.
Torture has been used since the beginning of humankind dating back to the Roman Empire when people were tortured as means of punishment for crimes to the present day where torture was used on terrorists as a means of eliciting information with the goal of saving innocent lives. Furthermore, in 2004, photos of torture conducted by the United States soldiers at Abu Ghraib in Iraq were leaked and shocked the world (Einolf, 2007). Subsequent news revealed that the British soldiers were also involved in the torture of Iraqi prisoners of war and that the U.S. army tortured prisoners in Afghanistan and the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay (Einolf, 2007). It was through these events that the public and academic debates about torture were opened up. Most Americans were shocked by these events because they were in disbelief that their own government would be involved in such treatment of humans. The debate of whether torture should be prohibited absolutely is challenging because many people believe in the utilitarian approach to preventing terrorist attacks. However, torture should be prohibited absolutely because although it can sometimes produce desirable outcomes, torturing another human is against some of the basic human rights including autonomy and dignity. This paper will first describe the history of torture to provide a better understanding of torture and how it is viewed and shaped through different events. Secondly, the events that led to the absolute abolition of torture will be briefly explained followed by the emphasis on the two approaches known as an ex-post justification and an ex-ante authorization that challenge the abolition of torture. Lastly, an argument for the absolute prohibition of torture will be provided with an emphasis on several important factors which cannot be justified to legalize torture.
History of torture
The understanding of torture is greatly influenced and shaped by historic events and experiences which is why it is important for one to become familiar with the concept of torture before determining whether it should be abolished or utilized (Sonderegger, 2014). It is also important to understand that the use of torture is multifaceted and can serve many purposes such as eliciting information from apprehended terrorists to save innocent lives or as punishment for crimes (Cherington, 2001). Torture had been used since the beginning of human history (Branche, 2007; Cherington, 2001). The ancient Greeks used torture as a tool of questioning the slaves to obtain confessions (Branche, 2007). Similarly, the Roman Empire used torture for the same reasons, with both civilizations limiting torture only for the slaves (Einolf, 2007; Sonderegger, 2014). However, during Imperial Rome, the distinction between the slaves and citizens became blurred and as a result, torture was used on the citizens as well as the slaves, especially if the Emperor deemed the citizens to be enemies (Cherington, 2001; Einolf, 2007). After the fall of the Roman Empire, torture continued to be used by the Barbarians. During this time a new law of evidence was developed due to the emergence of rationalism (Einolf, 2007). Under the new law, two eyewitnesses were required to convict an accused. However, if the two eyewitnesses were unable to provide a testimony then a confession was needed (Einolf, 2007; Sonderegger, 2014). As a result, torture was often used on the accused to obtain a confession and convict them (Branche, 2007).
Prohibition of torture
Torture was abolished in the 18th century by the European States (Cherington, 2001; Einolf, 2007). The establishment of a new law of proof known as free judicial evaluation of the evidence is what fostered the abolition (Einolf, 2007). However, torture could never be completely eliminated. This is evident in the events of the Second World War where the Nazis tortured and killed millions of people in the concentration camps (Branche, 2007; Sonderegger, 2014). Prohibition of torture became the main concern for the international community and as a result, an absolute ban on torture was introduced in the humanitarian law and other major rights treaties (Einolf, 2007; Sonderegger, 2014). Furthermore, prohibitions of torture can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the European Convention of Human Rights and the American Convention of Human Rights (Einolf, 2007; Sonderegger, 2014). All of the above treaties state that no one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Nevertheless, torture continued to be used in some countries, for example in the Algerian War (1954-1962) and the Vietnam War (1955-1975) (Branche, 2007). Lastly, since the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, the use of torture is still taken into consideration in democratic countries devoted by the rule of law. For example, the absolute ban on torture is challenged by two approaches known as ex-post justification and ex-ante authorization.
Ex post justification
An ex-post justification approach does not establish an administrative power to use torture in interrogations (Sonderegger, 2014). The use of torture is not authorized, however, if torture is used it entails criminal responsibility (Sonderegger, 2014). Importantly, an individual using torture can escape criminal responsibility if they use torture on grounds of necessity or self-defense. A number of scholars suggested that the absolute ban only addresses states and state actions (Branche, 2007; Sonderegger, 2014). In contrast, criminal liability is not dealing with the legality of a state action but rather with the individual’s actions in certain situations. It is suggested that an individual engaging in torture to protect their own life or the lives of others cannot be criminally liable for their actions (Sonderegger, 2014). Furthermore, the legal standard of Israel is currently an ex-post justification (Sonderegger, 2014). The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that there is no administrative power to use torture. Moreover, an individual engaging in torture as a means of self-defense is not prohibited from seeking legal defense of necessity (Sonderegger, 2014).
Ex-ante authorization
On the other hand, an ex-ante authorization approach establishes an ex-ante administrative power to conduct interrogations in a harsh manner in ticking-bomb scenarios (Sonderegger, 2014). For example, while German police law prohibits coercion and using harsh methods to elicit information, the same law allows the use of force, even deadly force, if there is an imminent threat to the life and physical well-being of innocent people (Jessberger, 2005). A number of scholars argued that when there is a clash of life versus life, the interest of innocent lives should prevail (Sonderegger, 2014). However, on the constitutional level, The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany (GG) guarantees and protects the terrorist and victims’ dignity in absolute terms. This is somewhat inconsistent with the ex-ante authorization approach because the GG and the ex-ante approach contradict one with the other, although it is important to understand the definitions of torture which may explain the inconsistency (Sonderegger, 2014). For example, while almost all definitions of torture include causing physical or mental pain, some countries like Sri Lanka do not include suffering in the definition. Additionally, Kazakhstan’s Penal Code does not include severity as a requirement for torture. Thus, definitions and the constitutions of torture are variable from country to country. Furthermore, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), states that torture of people is entirely prohibited while at the same time it states that the life of a lawbreaker may be taken if this is the only way to protect innocent lives (Sonderegger, 2014). One of the more recent examples of the ex-ante authorization approach is evident in the High-Value Detainee Program (HVDP) which was created by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an anti-terrorism measure following the twin towers attacks (Sonderegger, 2014; Lau, 2016). The HVDP attempted to institutionalize and regulate the harsh interrogations of certain detainees who were deemed highly dangerous and who had links to terrorist groups (Lau, 2016). However, the HVDP was ceased by the Obama administration (Sonderegger, 2014).
Ex ante authorization approach is underpinned by the utilitarian mechanism (Sonderegger, 2014; Aniel, 2018). In other words, it is believed that using torture on one individual with the hopes of eliciting some information that could potentially save the lives of innocent people is justified. The good outweighs the bad and the balance is met. This approach tends to minimize the significance of torture meaning that torture is perceived as an appropriate and justified method of obtaining information (Sonderegger, 2014; Aniel, 2018). However, torture is far beyond a mere method of obtaining information with numerous implications. Firstly, the process of carrying out torture not only significantly impairs the psychological and physical health of the individual being tortured, it also negatively affects the torturer (Rasmussen et al., 2007; Sonderegger, 2014). Moreover, survivors of torture often report adverse psychological effects such as major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (Rasmussen et al., 2007; Vorbrüggen & Baer, 2007; Choi et al., 2017; Constanzo & Gerrity, 2009). The adverse psychological effects are dependent on the duration of torture and the physical harm suffered during torture (Vorbrüggen & Baer, 2007; Choi et al., 2017; Constanzo & Gerrity, 2009). For example, survivors who were exposed to scaring or amputations of extremities generally suffer from more severe psychological effects than the survivors who do not have those physical reminders (Rasmussen et al., 2007; Motta, 1994; Vorbrüggen & Baer, 2007; Choi et al., 2017). Additionally, just the mere sight of another human being harmed is disturbing to most people. For example, many survivors of war experience post-traumatic stress disorder (Motta, 1994; Constanzo & Gerrity, 2009). Therefore, being the person inflicting pain to another human being through torture can result in significant psychological impairment for most people.
Secondly, an ex-ante approach comes with a risk of a slippery slope because the institutionalization of torture is a complex and multifaceted process that is difficult to control (Sonderegger, 2014; Aniel, 2018). This process would require numerous tests and experiments to be conducted in order to legalize it. Experiments would need to be conducted to determine which tools of torture should be utilized. However, no such experiments would be permitted to be carried by the ethics committee(Wantchekon, 1999). Nevertheless, if torture became institutionalized it would be challenging to monitor and regulate the process of torture because people are different and the pain from a specific tool may be experienced differently depending on gender and age of the person being tortured (Sonderegger, 2014; Aniel, 2018; Wantchekon, 1999). Thus, the results could possibly lead to death of the person being tortured.
Fourthly, the prohibition of torture supports the fundamental values of democratic societies. That is, the prohibition of torture is linked to one of the basic human rights of dignity (Sonderegger, 2014; Aniel, 2018). For example, torture aims to break a person’s will and by doing so it infringes upon autonomy. Moreover, denying a person’s autonomy contradicts the states’ fundament: A rule-of-law state or liberal state is based on the notion of the individual’s autonomy which is fundamental of all basic human rights and places the state’s legitimacy in question (Sonderegger, 2014).
Lastly, the utilitarian argument is the most prominent argument many people opposing the absolute prohibition of torture have. The argument is often explained with a ticking bomb situation. For example, a terrorist who is under the guard of authorities is being questioned because he is the only one who knows where the bomb is located. People argue that torture is the most effective way to elicit information from terrorists and save the lives of many innocent people. However, Sonderegger (2014) argued that the use of torture cannot be justified by utilitarian arguments because it breaches human rights. Additionally, in 2006 the German Federal Constitutional Court stated that collective goods may not, under any circumstances outstrip individual rights and it deemed individual freedom to be a higher stake than collective security (Sonderegger, 2014).
Aniel de Beer, A. (2018). The use of torture in the fight against terrorism. International and Comparative Law Review, 18(1), 51–88. https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2018-0026
Branche, R. (2007). Torture of terrorists? “Use of torture in a war against terrorism”: justifications, methods and effects. the case of France in Algeria, 1954-1962. International Review- Red Cross -New Series-, 89(867), 543–560.
Cherington, M. (2001). History of torture. The Lancet, 358(9281), 584–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05725-7
Choi, H., Lee, H.-J., & Lee, H.-Y. (2017). The effects of torture-related stressors on long-term complex post-traumatic symptoms in south korean torture survivors. International Journal of Psychology, 52, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12276
Costanzo, M. A., & Gerrity, E. (2009). The effects and effectiveness of using torture as an interrogation device: using research to inform the policy debate. Social Issues and Policy Review, 3(1), 179–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2009.01014.x
Einolf, C. J. (2007). The fall and rise of torture: a comparative and historical analysis. Sociological Theory, 25(2), 101–121.
LAU, F. (2016). The treatment of high value detainees under the united states’ extraordinary rendition program : a case of crimes against humanity for the international criminal court. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 39(3), 1261–1296.
Sonderegger, L. (2014). Torture and the fight against terrorism. Crime, Law and Social Change, 62(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9469-3
Rasmussen, A., Rosenfeld, B., Reeves, K., & Keller, A. S. (2007). The effects of torture-related injuries on long-term psychological distress in a punjabi sikh sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(4), 734–734. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.4.734
Motta, R. W. (1994). Identification of characteristics and causes of childhood posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 31(1), 49–56.
Jessberger, F. (2005). Bad torture – good torture? what international criminal lawyers may learn from the recent trial of police officers in Germany. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3(5), 1059–1073.
Vorbrüggen M, & Baer, H. U. (2007). Humiliation: the lasting effect of torture. Military Medicine, 172(12), 29–33.
Wantchekon, L., & Healy, A. (1999). The ‘game’ of torture. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43(5), 596–609.
The United States has had a history on torture of foreign terrorists and suspected allies that have been received both negatively and positively domestically and internationally. After 9/11, it was easier for the United States to see foreigners as dangerous and potential threats to its society. It’s a basic human instinct to want to fight against threats to oneself, but where do we draw the line to maintain the safety and security of our country? The Foreign Affairs article “The Strategic Costs of Torture: How ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Hurt America” by Douglas A. Johnson, Alberto Mora, and Averell Schmidt explains The United States’ affinity for torture internationally after 9/11 and how it’s affected the reputation of America and how other countries view their relations with this country. During Barrack Obama’s administration, torture was banned to “rebuke Bush administration, which had, in the years after 9/11 attacks, authorized the CIA and the U.S military to use ‘enhanced interrogation techniques in questioning suspected terrorists’” (foreign affairs 2016). The article goes further to explain how allied countries to the US have gone against the methods of interrogation the US had enacted on detainees from other countries in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, detention centers in west of Baghdad and Cube. In response to the consequences, the US has experienced with its form of torture, the US, in 2014, released reports on an investigation into the CIA’s interrogation and torture program in the early 2000s. Their aim was to show how the interrogation methods had not produced any new information from detainees and how the interrogations the CIA did could have been handled differently without torturing the detainees.
The issue of torture in the United States is important because as the 2020 presidential elections draw closer, the policy of bringing back “enhanced interrogation methods” could potentially be an aspect of the election that people would be looking for in a president. The authors of the Foreign Affairs article state that “Today, many Americans are considering electing a president who wants to bring such abuses back…majority of Americans now think that the CIA’s use of torture was justified” (foreign affairs 2016). Terrorism and attacks against the United States is still fears a lot of citizens have with the possible rise of Isis again and fear of what immigrants and refugees could do to the country. If citizens are rethinking the method of torture once again, it can change how the elections are considered and will change foreign policy/cooperation with other countries that have its own policies against torture. Many allies and relationships with countries that have aided the United States for centuries may not agree with the United States if it were to bring back torture, so cooperation could become difficult for the United States. Moreover, torture isn’t as effective as many CIA officials have claimed it to be.
Within the current Trump administration, support for bringing back torture and other means of interrogation is something Donald Trump agrees upon. Days after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, he had his first TV Interview where he stated that “he believes torture ‘absolutely’ works and that the US should ‘fight fire with fire’” (the guardian 2017). Trump’s method of gathering information relies on the fact that if you use enough force on a person, they will be able to tell the truth, but as authors, Matthew Weaver and Spencer Ackerman from “The Guardian” state, torture “undermines a source’s ability to be a reliable reporter of information” (theguardian). In Trump’s administration, there’s little thought about how their decisions would affect the US’s relationships with other countries if Trump decides to make policies that contradict a lot of the human rights laws the US and other countries maintain to keep the peace with each other. Bush’s administration, according to Harold Hongju Koh of “Foreign Policy”, “helped terrorist recruiting, devastated international standing, and damaged our alliances. It punctured the faith of so many who wanted to believe in America’s exceptional leadership” (foreign policy 2014). Torture had the opposite effect Bush planned for it to have instead of people giving accurate information, the CIA could have been given false statements for the detainees to receive less torture. Many of the terrorist groups also benefitted from the torture that the US was doing. Because it showed how dangerous the US could be and how untrustworthy they could be if they were torturing innocent citizens. The Trump administration may be bringing that back if they decide to make it legal for the military to begin torturing suspected terrorists in other countries.
Despite a lot of people recently showing interest in bringing back the methods of torture for interrogation, many organizations and groups in the United States are against the idea of policymaking for it. Other countries are opposed to it as well as it violates their own policies and laws of protecting the human rights of their citizens and people from other countries. According to Weaver and Ackerman, “Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May, has been urged to by her own MPs to make Britain’s opposition to torture clear to Trump when she visits him” (the guardian 2017). Other countries need to maintain their own relationships and follow their own international laws and human rights laws they’ve established. Apart from other countries’ views on the US and its policies, Koh also states that “the [2014 Enhanced Interrogation Program] reveals that ‘the CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program” (foreign policy 2014). With that report, many US citizens were able to have a better understanding of what was happening with the CIA and the military with the torture program, but not all the information was released. There was more biased information given. False information could have also given allied countries the idea that the US couldn’t handle its own problems and cause conflicts with how trustworthy or reliable the United States is to those other countries. The Obama ban to torture was a step towards gaining confidence from allied countries, but the Trump administration could potentially damage that reputation.
The area of torture and methods of interrogations deal a lot more with Security Studies than with International Political Economy, although international relations with other countries can also impact the economy of the US if the US is to revert back to using torturous methods to interrogate detainees outside of United States territory. The US has acted in different ways to keep national and international security in its own way. Their focus was then on keeping the debate on torture as low as it could be while brushing off what many officials did overseas. In the “Shadow Report to the United Nations Committee Against Torture on the Review of the Periodic Report of the United States of America” by Harvard Law professors and alumni, it’s stated that “President Obama admitted that U.S. officials tortured people, using techniques that, in his estimation, ‘any fair-minded person would believe were torture’…the United States has yet to impartially and thoroughly investigate and prosecute senior officials” (Harvard 2014). They explain how the United States has decided to leave those problems in the past and instead look towards the future to what could be done about it, so it won’t happen again. The lack of law-abiding from the United States could potentially give countries the idea that the US is fine with torture and other intense interrogation methods that those countries are against.
The United States has taken the approach of realism in international relations studies due to the fact that the US is primarily concerned with how effective “enhanced interrogation methods” are when it comes to obtaining information instead of the moralistic idea of the whole situation. There’s a lot of international interest for the United States on the line when considering torture abroad which is similar to Obama’s counteraction towards Bush’s administration enacting torture to interrogate suspected terrorists. Karen DeYoung from The Washington Post writes about how “’ The U.S. government has a chance to reassert U.S. global leadership on human rights by making it unambiguously clear that [it] doesn’t condone torture anywhere’” (washingtonpost 2014)). The retired marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar who stood next to Obama when Obama banned torture at the Geneva meeting was also thinking realistically and had in mind what many others had in mind: the US needed to maintain great relations with democratic countries. The United States, before the Obama administration, wanted to find the most effective way of asserting their dominance over the terrorist group and other groups that didn’t operate in a democratically western way, and enhanced interrogation methods was what the untrained CIA thought of doing in time of crisis and desperation for results. Scott Shane of the New York Times paints it in a simple way: “the bitter infighting in the CIA interrogation program was only one symptom of the dysfunction, disorganization, impotence, greed, and deception…[the agency] was ill-equipped to take on the task” in his article “Report Portrays a Broken CIA Devoted to a Failed Approach” (NYTimes 2014). There’s evidence in the 2014 report of the CIA that demonstrates why their torture method lead to less than what could have been received through non-violent methods. Torture was a failed approach on the CIA’s part, but the United States can’t revert back to torturous methods unless they want to lose cooperation and ties with other countries.
The United States should take a liberalist approach to the torture topic instead of a solely realistic approach. While other countries are also thinking about their national interests, their moral concerns are the main consideration when it comes to torture. In Matt Apuzzo, Sheri Fink, and James Risen’s words in “How U.S. Torture Left a Legacy of Damaged Minds”, “[government lawyers and intelligence officials] knew that the methods inflicted on terrorism suspects would be painful, shocking, and far beyond what the country had ever accepted. But none of it, they concluded, would cause long-lasting psychological harm. Fifteen years later, it is clear they were wrong” (NYTimes 2016). The authors describe how many of the tortured suspected terrorists may have physically recovered, but a majority of those who were tortured never mentally recovered from the trauma the CIA put them through. The torture methods that they experienced were brutal to the point where they haven’t “felt normal” in a long time or where their conditions are similar to American prisoners of war. They went home and didn’t feel the same as they did before the brutality they went through. Much developed post-traumatic-stress disorder or anxiety attacks whenever there was mention of where they were held or when they had to talk about the torture. It would benefit the United States to take a stronger liberalist approach to the consideration of bringing back militaristic torture because it would not only be a moralistic approach that follows the Human Rights laws the US has, but it would also provide other countries with an example of how the United States can still be an international superpower that democratic countries can follow. It would show leadership and responsibility to those countries that doubt the leadership of the US with the Trump administration in power.
Torture in modern times isn’t received as positively as it was a long time ago. Despite the Trump administration is in favor of bringing it back, there’s a lot more opposition towards it domestically and internationally. When it comes to torture for the United States, the country needs to have both liberalistic and realistic perspectives in international relations. Torture has had a negative past in the United States that resulted in problems with citizens, foreigners, and trust within countries. It has caused psychological and political problems that have the potential to come back after it has been banned by the Obama administration and the Trump administration wants to dig it back out if there are more threats to international democratic security. “Enhanced Interrogation” has hurt America before, it would benefit the US if this form of aggressivity weren’t repeated again because it will “alter the relationship between the United States and its allies” (foreign affairs 2016).
Bibliography
Apuzzo, Matt, et al. “How U.S. Torture Left a Legacy of Damaged Minds.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Oct. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/world/cia-torture-guantanamo-bay.html.
Bond, Trudy, et al. “Advocates for U.S. Torture Prosecution.” Harvard Law, 29 Sept. 2014, hrp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CAT-Shadow-Report-Advocates-for-US-Torture-Prosecutions.pdf.
DeYoung, Karen. “United Nations Asks the United States to Clarify Its Position on Torture.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 12 Nov. 2014, www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/united-nations-asks-united-states-to-clarify-its-position-on-torture/2014/11/11/12be42c0-69e1-11e4-b053-65cea7903f2e_story.html.
Johnson, Douglas A., et al. “The Strategic Costs of Torture.” Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 26 Jan. 2017, www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/strategic-costs-torture.
Koh, Harold Hongju. “The Torture Report Is Only the First Step.” Foreign Policy, 12 Dec. 2014, www.foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/12/the-torture-report-is-only-the-first-step/.
Shane, Scott. “Report Portrays a Broken C.I.A. Devoted to a Failed Approach.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Dec. 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/world/senate-torture-report-shows-cia-infighting-over-interrogation-program.html.
Weaver, Matthew, and Spencer Ackerman. “Trump Claims Torture Works but Experts Warn of Its ‘Potentially Existential’ Costs.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 26 Jan. 2017, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-torture-absolutely-works-says-us-president-in-first-television-interview.
In this study, the researchers will analyze how the institutional framework has a direct influence on the implementation of the Convention considering their roles and responsibility in eliminating torture in Uganda. The institutional framework will mean existing mechanisms or bodies that have been tasked with taking on the functions of preventing and prohibiting torture in Uganda. They will include Uganda Human Rights Commission, Parliament, Judiciary, Police, Prisons, and the Uganda Peoples’ Defense Force (UPDF) among others.
Each body has been tasked to promote freedom against torture in one way or another; therefore, the performance of each body has an impact on the implementation of the Convention. Parliament is supposed to domesticate the convention, provide for the criminalization of torture and review interrogation rules and procedures. The Uganda Human Rights Commission is supposed to carry out Prompt and impartial investigation and grant any Remedies available to victims; this is the same with the judiciary. Police, Prisons, and the Uganda Peoples’ Defense Force (UPDF) need to Review of interrogation rules and procedures. In such, the study will establish what powers the institutions have and how they can properly be used in implementing the UNCAT to get a “torture-free” Uganda.
1.9 Literature Review
Uganda has a long history of torture, often perpetrated on a very large scale. Thousands of persons have become victims of torture since 1995. In the absence of any official statistics, it is difficult to estimate the overall number of torture victims. Suitable indicators for the scale of torture are the number of victims treated by ACTV and of torture-related complaints submitted to the Ugandan Human Rights Commission (around 75% of which are commonly upheld by the Commission).
Uganda ratified the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1987. It subsequently domesticated it in 2012, by enacting the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act. The Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act provide a comprehensive definition of torture. It also makes torture a criminal offense, provides sanctions for the offense of torture and regulates the use of information obtained by means of torture.
One of the most striking features of the understanding attached to the convention is the alteration of governing standards. The Act also made history when it held government officers individually liable for the offense of torture. It is worth noting that Uganda Human Rights Commission reported in its 16th Annual Report that the torture cases against police officers tremendously reduced following the legislation for personal liability for acts of torture. Previously, these acts would be litigated only against the State and only in as far as they were committed by the government security agencies in the course of their duty. In fact, parliament has gone ahead to demand for the prosecution of police officers over torture. The speaker of Parliament Rebecca Kadaga noted that the acts depict total disregard of the prevention and prohibition of torture Act by the police force.
Further, the Act bestows duties, responsibilities and rights to various persons including State actors, non-State actors, and the public at large. The Government of Uganda, partnering with the Uganda Human Rights Commission in concert with various State and non-State actors has developed a road map for the implementation of the Act. Annual performance reviews are done during the commemoration of the UN Day in support of torture and other cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In addition, there is also in place a coalition of State and non-State actors committed to eliminating torture. Through this coalition, the Government has put in place various structures and officers responsible for promoting human rights and this includes protection from torture. These include the Uganda Human Rights Commission and its secretary General, the Parliament Committee Against torture and the rehabilitation center Kampala. There is a cabinet sub-committee on human rights, the parliamentary committee on human rights this one is headed by Honorable Kamateeka Jovah from Mitooma constituency, a human rights desk in the ministry of justice and constitutional affairs. There are plans to set up more such desks in all government agencies. The police have been provided with a directory for human rights and legal advisory services.
This notwithstanding, the institutional framework still faces challenges in implementing the already domesticated law. These challenges include;
There is no explicit right to reparation for torture that would facilitate access to justice for victims, in particular by using the definition of torture, providing for simplified procedures taking international standards into account, and stipulating adequate forms of reparation. Victims may bring claims before the courts but there are a series of legal obstacles, including short statutes of limitations of two years for bringing cases against the State, excluding recourse to the courts for a large number of torture victims. While cases can still be brought before the UHRC (there is a 5-year limitation period which can be extended), this does not apply to victims of torture pre-1995 who are left without access to justice, contrary to international standards. A further obstacle is that there is no State system providing legal aid for pursuing claims before the courts. Although court fees can be waived for “paupers”, access to the courts is beyond the means of most torture survivors.
There is a lack of victim and witness protection. There is no law providing for effective victim and witness protection, or a program to this end. Victims and witnesses continue to face intimidation and harassment, which impacts adversely on the ability to pursue cases even when the law guarantees their protection.
It is always much more difficult to assign criminal responsibility than it is to establish that a human rights violation has taken place. The rules of evidence and standards of proof will be needed in any criminal inquiry
Impunity is one of the reasons as to why the enjoyment of freedom from torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment remains a myth in Uganda. It has been argued that the Police should be compelled to stop using procedures that taint the voluntariness of an accused and other individuals to provide evidence. The procedure from arrest to the production of a person in court from plea should be streamlined to avoid human rights violations.
the use of torture by officials as an interrogation tool is due to lack of effective alternatives for investigating crime and the officials are often unaware of studies that have shown that torture is a very ineffective way of obtaining reliable information. I the assessment that lack of effective alternatives for investigating the crime as a cause of torture I agree with but disregard the assessment that officials are unaware of studies that have shown torture as an ineffective way of obtaining reliable information. As a way forward, the government should opt for advanced scientific methods of obtaining valid confessions from suspects rather than using torture to obtain confessions. The Government should adopt the use of forensic science and technology which are quick means of obtaining information.
It has also become clear that most survivors lack financial security as a result of injuries because they commonly do not have the necessary capital and/or are unable to earn as before. All survivors stress the need for compensation, treatment and justice. They emphasize that the perpetrators of torture ought to be punished, and criticize the prevailing impunity. Survivors express serious reservations about apologies if not accompanied by accountability and compensation. Legal help and social and economic rehabilitation are equally mentioned as crucial means that would help them to address or even overcome some of their difficulties. To the extent therefore that the framework does not make manifest the wants and needs of the survivors of the torture, it becomes difficult for the latter to trust the former’s ability to dispense justice.
It has been suggested by Ntungwerisho that the cycle of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment can be broken through ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Prevention Against Torture (OPCAT) by the Parliament which requires States to establish National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) to conduct independent oversight of the treatment of those in prisons and detention facilities as a safeguard to ensure adherence to treaties and national laws banning torture since most of the torture in Uganda happens detention facilities, this would go a long way in preventing torture. The author’s suggestions are in no doubt recommendable but they are not fulfilling in achieving the goal of eradicating torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment which the researcher seeks to address. Victim and witness protection programs should be strengthened to enable the victims of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment to report such acts freely against the perpetrators with fear of their lives and of those close to them.
Interagency coordination and consultation is a proposed measure. This usually requires coordinated action within and at times institutions, invoking different sectors and stakeholders as these are the key players in the field of implementation of the convention thus a coordinated network between these institutions is key to the implementation progress.
Besides, Institutional strengthening and capacity building is also important. These usually involve building the capacity of the staff, identifying areas of policy and practice within institutions that need to be improved and subsequently integrating agreed measures within planning and resource allocation. These can help in equipping the staff with the relevant knowledge about the problem and subsequently also helps in planning especially areas that need urgent attention resources are allocated to such areas without undue delay
1.10 Methodology
A mixed-method research approach will be used during the research. The study is concerned with the analysis of the effectiveness of the institutional framework in implementing the UNCAT in Uganda. The issues therein are best investigated using the ethnography approach and survey approach. Ethnography will enable the researcher to have a complete picture of what is being studied and will likely to lead to new insights. The ethnographic research approach generally entails carrying out the research from a natural setting, and face-to-face interaction with the participants, among others. For the purpose of this study, this approach will identify the success and challenges of the institutions in implementing the UNCAT in Uganda rather than just disapproving of them. The approach may suffer from many hours of observation, and difficulty in interpreting phenomena. However, these are insignificant compared to its contributions to the study.
Survey design will also be used by the researchers to investigate on the issues. The survey design will enable the researcher do extensive research and it will enable researcher to assess the changes occurring in a given society over an extended period of time. This method has be chosen among other because it will enable one to describe and explain.
The researchers will use documentary analysis as a method of data analysis. One advantage of documentary analysis is that it allows research on subjects to which the researcher does not have physical access. The researchers will look into the different articles and collect data from any specialized and general library for example the Uganda Christian University library, Makerere library, law development center library, Uganda Human Rights Commission library, and the African center for treatment and rehabilitation of torture victims’ library among others.
Besides documentary analysis, the researchers will also use observation since the researchers will be immersed in the natural setting of the study. Focus group discussions will also be used. Focus group discussion allows for exploring in depth the problem being investigated and its possible causes. The researchers have chosen this tool because it will help identify both the potential and actual causes of the problem and then develop appropriate interventions.
In analyzing data on the effectiveness of the institutional framework, a longitudinal and explanatory research design will be used. These will help in answering questions of how the institutions have been significant and what challenges they face in their implementations. A longitudinal research design is particularly important because it will be helpful in providing valuable data regarding the problem. It will also help in determining whether there has been compliance or not. This is through comparing the torture cases from the time it was of the enactment of the UNCAT to date.
This study is will be conducted in Uganda. It is envisaged that time and financial constraints will dictate a smaller sample. Given the fact that the researchers are full-time students, they had limited time to develop the proposal. It is foreseen that time factor will affect the collection of data, compilation and submission the report. Besides, the researchers will meet the full cost of the study. The data collected will form a smaller sample that could be generalization to the entire country but it will be useful for exemplification and developing a debate.
According to Denis, “researchers have an obligation to conform to the ethical values and standards of the society in which they conduct their work.” He further notes that they are to be informed about the legal policy and framework in which their research has to be conducted. The major ethical problem to this study will be the privacy and confidentiality of the respondents. Obtaining a valid sample will entail gaining access to the specific lists and files which may itself be an infringement on the right to privacy and confidentiality of the respondents. However, the respondents will have the freedom to ignore items that they do not wish to respond to (especially during the focus group discussion) to and if they chose to be anonymous, this will be taken with the utmost respect.
1.11 Chapter Synopsis
Chapter 1: Proposal
Chapter 2: An assessment of the non-legal aspects of the institutional framework in the implementation of the convention against torture in Uganda.
Chapter 3: Analysis of the legal regime governing institutional framework in the implementation of the convention against torture in Uganda.
Chapter 4: Summary of findings, conclusions and recommendation.
1.12 Conclusion
In conclusion, there has been extensive literature on torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment. However, most of the writings are concerned with documenting torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and its causes rather than the effectiveness of the measures put in place to curb the practice that this research seeks to answer.
After establishing when torture is justified, it is easier to answer who exactly should be tortured. Firstly, no innocent person should be tortured. As stated above, intelligence officers should not go “fishing” for information. Obviously, an innocent person does not have possession of information pertaining to an imminent threat, which does not pass the criteria listed above that justifies using torture. Further, if an individual is torturing an innocent person, it is reasonable to believe that the torturer is solely using this for punishment and to inflict pain. The only individuals that should be tortured are guilty ones! They are the ones who have knowledge of threats and created the attack. A terrorist is an example of this. By taking place in terrorist activities, the individual is no longer innocent. They are essentially “in the game”. Tiel (2019) elaborates on this: “Because a state of perpetual threat to the innocent persists, the terrorist actors have forfeited their rights and may be killed. It follows that their rights to liberty, health, and preservation of limb are likewise forfeit” (p. 39). When a terrorist willfully engages in an act that threatens innocent lives, they relinquish any rights that they had. They are putting completely innocent lives at risk. Allhof (n.d.) also supports this stance: “…we should not torture innocent people such that others may benefit…complicity in terrorist activities constitutes a forfeiture of innocence” (p. 131). When the U.S. catches high profile terrorists, and intelligence officers have legitimate reasons to believe that the individual knows of terrorist activities and future threats, then intelligence professionals are justified in using torture. But even here there is a line that must be drawn, specifically when it comes to family, friends, and other people within the terrorist’s life. Tiel (2019) defines specific ethical limits concerning individuals other than the terrorist:
Ethical limits on interrogative torture come into play when we look at threatening a terrorist’s innocent family, a question of targeting, or when we capture a person whose role remains unclear, a question of identification. Torture may not be used on people known to be innocent simply because they are valued by the bomb-planters… But where we have in our grasp a person known to have forfeited his natural rights to life, liberty, limb, and property, and where that person possesses information critical to safeguarding the lives of innocent people in our care, in such cases the only ethical limit on permissible coercion is the principle of non-gratuitous harm. (p. 39)
Even if the terrorist has a family, an intelligence officer is not justified in torturing the terrorist’s family if they are truly innocent. The innocent family should not have to be put in harm’s way because of the actions of the terrorist. There is already enough hardship that the innocent family of a terrorist faces. Essentially, torturing the innocent family is just another potential life along with the other innocent people in danger that can be hurt or taken because of the choice the terrorist has made. The argument stated at the beginning of this section applies to the family of a terrorist as well if they are innocent. They should be treated no differently from the other innocent lives involved. Just like there needs to be certain circumstances that justify torture, there also needs to be moral lines drawn when determining which individuals it would be morally justified to torture. Under no circumstances should an innocent person be tortured. Intelligence agencies need to have safeguards, like a weed-out process, that ensures no innocent person is tortured. Only individuals that are guilty, such as terrorists, who have given up their rights because they have taken part in causing a grave and imminent threat should be tortured.
What Means of Torture are Permissible?
Now that it has been determined when torture is permissible and who should be tortured, it is now time to turn to what types of torture should be ethical. Some forms of torture that are arguably more justifiable than other types. But firstly, it should be established that one should only use the least amount of torture necessary to obtain the information that is needed. An ethical/moral problem is raised when the torturer inflicts more pain than necessary on an individual. Obviously, torture is designed to cause the person subjected to it to be uncomfortable, to say the least. When the torturer crosses this line, he/she is no longer using the technique to solely gain the information needed to stop an imminent and grave threat, and now are just using torture for the sake of it. Olson (2006) created several scenarios with one being on what forms of torture are permissible and one person, Roxana Botea, said the following in response to the scenario:
It depends. While some of the interrogation techniques seem perfectly acceptable (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 15, 19, and 20), others are problematic. Methods that cause permanent physical or psychological damage are not ethical under most circumstances. Several of the technique (4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18) may fall in this category. (p. 219)
The key conclusion to be drawn from this quote is the sentence that states that any techniques that cause permanent physical or psychological damage are morally unacceptable. These forms of torture do not allow the victim even a chance to recover from them and permanently inhibit the victim from living out their daily life as they could before and prevent them from performing basic life tasks that they could previously do without a problem. The forms of torture that can be morally justified are the techniques that do not cause permanent damage to the individual. A few examples of this can include messing up the victim’s sleeping pattern, making their environment disorienting, and removing objects from them that bring them some form of comfort or security. Certainly, some of these techniques and others that are not listed can cause the victim to feel discomfort, but if there is a reasonable expectation that the person can recover from them, then those specific techniques can be justified. But other forms of torture cannot be justified. In his paper, Allhoff (n.d.) divides torture into three categories, physical (for example, drowning or suffocating) psychological (techniques such as sleep deprivation, and bright lights), and torture directed at people other than the terrorist, and states that torture that is aimed at a someone other than the person in question in order to get them to talk is unacceptable (p. 135). This is a valid argument. Naturally, when this form of torture is used, it is aimed at someone who the terrorist or another captive in question cares about. Usually, these people are not in “the game”, and any form of torture used against them to get to the terrorist is unjustified. Allhoff (n.d.) supports this line of reasoning: …Why should some people bear the costs so that others may receive the benefits? I argued earlier that the complicity of the former would be a good reason – they created the risk (or were party to its creation) and therefore obviously not innocent bystanders…the innocent bystander should not have to endure torture so that we can coerce the terrorist. This bystander has not done anything to deserve the treatment, whereas the terrorist has.
Why should the innocent person pay for the guilty one’s actions? They took no part in the terrorist’s acts nor are they “in the game”. The torturer has no reason to be causing any discomfort or pain to an innocent individual, especially when they know that the person is innocent. While it can be argued that this form of torture can be effective in ways that other techniques cannot, it is highly controversial. The intelligence officer needs to use other techniques that can be morally justifiable. In summary, there are methods of torture that can be justified, but they need to be evaluated to see if they are morally justifiable by answering what their effects will be, are they permanent, and who are these techniques be used against. Forms of torture that causes permanent damage to an individual can never be justified. Nor can torture against individuals that are close to the terrorist but are innocent cannot be justified. Types of torture that do not cause permanent physical or psychological damage (the victim can recover from the ordeal) can be morally justifiable as long as it is directed at the person in question and no one else. Yet one might state wrestle with the objection that any type of torture could cause physical damage. In this case, it might be beneficial to judge each terrorist on a case by case basis to determine which technique will provide the best course of action
Conclusion
Torture is a controversial topic that has only become more prominent in the media around the world after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center as well as the Pentagon and the crashed plane in Pennsylvania. Presumably, torture will continue to be a grey area among the American public. To some degree, torture can be labeled as a necessary evil in this world. Torture can be permissible in some cases, but the intelligence officer must meet a narrow list of criteria in order to use it and not try to bend these lines in any way. The criteria listed include that torture should only be used to collect information that pertains to an imminent and grave threat to national security, and not just for the sake of punishment or to go looking for information. There has to be evidence that the person in question has this information. Further, the only people that should be tortured are terrorists and other actors who possess information that pertains to this imminent and grave threat. No innocent person should be tortured under any circumstance. Finally, torture should only be a last resort, the minimum amount as possible is employed, and no torture that inflicts permanent psychological or physical harm should be used on a person. The Intelligence Community should be careful concerning the use of torture. No intelligence officer should ever take pleasure in this method but must recognize that they are using it to defend innocent lives. As one can see, this is a topic that the Intelligence Community must wrestle with and as long as they continue to wrestle with this topic, it is a good sign that the intelligence community is on the right track.