The Reasons Against Torture Justification

Nowadays in our world crime is happen every minute in every country. Police officer have several ways to deal with the criminal or the suspect but, there is one method that is still debate until now that it should prohibited under all circumstances or not and that method is torture. Torture is an act of intentionally inflicting severe pain, whether on physical or mental on a person for such aims as obtaining him or a third person information or in order to fulfill some desire. There is one interesting study case, it happens in Germany and the police decide to torture the suspect to gain the information.

This case is about one boy whose name is J, he had been kidnapped and the felon whose name is Magnus Gafgen, he is a law student and he know law every well. He wants one million euro for the ransom. At the result Magnus Gafgen had been a suspected and had been detained in the prison for the interrogate by the police officer. During the interrogation the police officer ask Gafgen that where is the boy, Gefgen lying to the police for several times. So, this lead police name Daschner order to use force (torture) to Gafgen if he doesn’t tell where the boy is, Gafgen fear to be torture then he told the police that the boy is already dead and his corpse is under the jetty at the pond and the boy is die by suffocating. After this cased is spread out it unleashed a big debate in Germany about police interrogation technique, it divided people in to two sides. First side is who sympathized the police because they understand that the police trying to do their best in order to save the life of an innocent child. So, they oppose to charging and punishing the police officer while another side is absolute ban on torture, they believe that torture is a crime under international law, it is absolutely prohibited and cannot be justified under any situations.

In my opinion, I’m agree with the statement “torture is absolutely prohibited under all circumstances.” So, I’m in the absolute ban on torture side, the first reason is because torture can destroy humanity as human everyone has right to life. Nobody should ever be tortured in any situations. The prohibition on torture is one of the most fundamental rights protected by the Human Rights Act. Also, torture is violating human dignity. More over there is a right of equality in human right, this mean that all people are born free and equal. everyone has right to be treated equally. According to the case in Germany, even though Magnus Gafgen is felon it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have a right. He has the same rights and deserve the same level of respect like others.

The second reason is if it has any exception to allowing to use torture it can implicate the risk of abuse and open the door to a dangerously slope, in worst case torture can becomes arbitrary and unpunished, or widespread and systematic, or both. If torture is unpunished and widespread our world will face a big problem human will not be human anymore, they will view others like an animal, to be used as one needed or pleased and this can lead to war crime and human rights violation. More over The setting up of a legalized exception in a single State would also cause international proliferation, If States that seem to be world leaders on human rights express their tolerance of torture, even in small circumstances, other States will take this as their sign to continue their own use of torture against their own populations.

Next reason is morality, torture is absolutely prohibited as a matter of morals and ethics, and so no torture must be applied no matter how great the costs. The consequence of torture is lifelong the victim that had been tortured will have a pain that haunted them in their memory and maybe it will damage that victim in mentally and physical way in their life forever. Sometime a person that been torture is not a real suspect but the torture is already done before knowing the truth, so who will respond on this consequence. Also, there is not a thing that can proof that torture is work, how can we know that is a true information. According to a statement by 25 former interrogators and intelligence professionals from the U.S. military and other federal agencies “The application of psychological, emotional, and/or physical pressure can force a victim of torture to say anything just to end the painful experience. The challenge of interrogation is not ‘to make people talk’; instead, it is to obtain precise and credible information.”

Also, torture should be permitted even in the extreme situation. Some may say that to saving the innocent life is must override a person’s right not to be tortured. According to the ticking bomb scenario: a bomb has been set to explode that it will kill thousands of innocent people and a detained person is known to have information on where the bomb is and how to defuse it. Is torture justified in such a case to make the detainee to talk? The international community, however, refused the use of torture even in the ‘ticking bomb’ case. according to International human rights law – as well as U.S. law – do not have any exceptions to the prohibition against torture.

In conclusion, torture can never be justified and can never be considered the morality correct thing to do, torture should never happen to anyone even that person is a bad guy we should follow the law in order to protect and prevent the dangerous consequence that will come in the future. Moreover, torture does not fulfill its aim of gaining useful information and it often brings about more inhumanity. So, always say no to torture.

Moral And Ethical Grounds For Non-Lethal Torture Legislation

Today, many citizens, political figures and academic scholars alike argue about the ethical and moral grounds of torture. Some are against the brutal, extreme and highly potential abuse inflicted on torture victims that often go along in the use of torture interrogation tactics while others say it is acceptable under extenuating circumstances. One such case many argue would fall under extenuating circumstances is the ticking-time bomb argument in which a terrorist is tortured in order to extract information of a pre-set bomb positioned in a civilian area. This paper will examine and argue against Alan Dershowitz’s proposal on torture in his article “Should the Ticking Time Bomb Terrorist be Tortured?”. Dershowitz, an American lawyer and academic scholar, proposes that in regards to torture, there should be only the use of judicially sanctioned non-lethal torture that forces a terrorist suspect to disclose information that could possibly prevent an imminent and large-scale terrorist attack. He argues that by legalizing and labeling torture, as only under extreme circumstances, one would be effectively putting limitations on the frequency as well as the severity of the use of torture. I will argue against Dershowitz’s justifications for the use of (judicially sanctioned) torture that would better protect the rights of torture victims and against the use of torture at all. This paper will justify the arguments against Dershowitz from both a legal and moral objectionable standpoint.

Following the September 11 attacks and throughout the War on Terror, an international military campaign launched by the United States government in response to the attacks, the ticking-time bomb argument has been used repeatedly by both academic scholars and political figures to justify a legalized, state-sponsored program of torture. In 2004, CBS published photographs that publicized human rights violations against detainees committed by United States Army personnel and the Central Intelligence agency in Abu Ghraib, a prison in Iraq. These photographs and evidence of abuse once again brought up the question of whether torture on detainees will ever truly be justified in the war against terrorism and the commitment to security and peace. Dershowitz’s proposal states that law enforcement officials would be allowed to torture a terrorist suspect after first obtaining a judicial warrant from the court. While Dershowitz is generally against the use of torture, he argues that people are allowed to resort to it under the ticking time bomb scenario. Judicially sanctioned torture is Dershowitz’s middle ground solution for lessening the use of torture against terrorist suspects. This judicial warrant would be a sort of checks and balances for the use of torture in making sure that officials have a probable cause that proves that the detainee has knowledge of where the bomb is located, is reluctant or refuses to disclose the location and that there is immediate, life-threatening danger to the public’s safety. Furthermore, if the official warrant were to be signed off, the detainee would then be subjected to painful, yet non-fatal and a specific method of torture. With all the legal proceedings, the guarantee that torture should be used and in a specific way secures and protects the rights of a torture victim by prohibiting the abuse of torture tactics and preventing the mistake of inflicting torture on an innocent detainee. In leaving the decision up to an official judge, the decision making process would be examined and evaluated by a relevant official of high intelligence that is bound to uphold the law and can be held publically accountable for their decisions in court.

There are many flaws in Dershowitz’s legal reasoning’s for having judicially sanctioned torture. He first attempts to remedy the possibilities of torturing the wrong person or torturing one for the wrong reasons by basing the reason for torture solely on a hypothetical circumstance in which the detainee in question is already guilty of having knowledge as well as withholding it. This reason right off the bat goes against a fundamental, democratic, legal value of presuming ones innocence until proven guilty. His second attempt at remedying that particular problem is to place the decision making process of issuing the torture warrant into the hands of a judge. Judges are yes, in a high position of power and with that comes great responsibilities, but they are also prone to making mistakes, having biased judgments and would now have to hold the psychological and emotional toll of having to deal with moral and ethical dilemmas that come from making decisions permitting torture. Since Dershowitz’s ticking time bomb argument is time-sensitive, people (the judges) are more susceptible to being swayed into thinking and acting irrationally if there is limited time in gathering evidence and making decisions and especially if it assumed that there are lives that are at stake. While one of the main focuses of Dershowitz’s proposal is the protection of the rights of torture victims, he is not taking into account the legal hypocrisies the legalization of torture has on the democratic values of the government as well as the burden that would befall the officials deliberating over and handing out the final decision of the torture warrants.

Dershowitz’ justification for the legalization of torture in order to protect torture victims is a moral and ethical hypocrisy. One cannot protect human rights by still allowing for the infliction of torture. Philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that torture improperly uses people as a means to achieve an end, therefore torture violates human dignities because humans should always be treated as an end and never as a means. Torturing a suspected terrorist would violate their autonomy, which is the basis for human dignity, a universally fundamental right. This outcome is the exact opposite of protecting the rights of a torture victim. The problem is that the person is a victim of torture in the first place. The problem is torture itself.

With the war on terror putting a spotlight on the legal and moral debate on the use of torture, Dershowitz’s argument for a judicially sanctioned, non-lethal form of torture is both morally and legally unjustifiable. Dershowitz’s argument is flawed based on the various factors in the decision-making process of a torture warrant that can be swayed based on the human nature and emotional state a judge has in the moment. He also violates the due process of law in attempting to make torture a legal practice in order to better protect torture victims from being violated. His reasoning’s as well as methods to back of his reasons are both flawed on that account. While Dershowitz claims that his argument would help to minimize the use of torture itself and protect detainees and suspects of mistaken identity, he does not seem to take into account the democratic legal values of human rights and the dignity that would violate a torture victim in the first place. Overall, Dershowitz;’s ticking time bomb argument in favor of legally instating and judicially sanctioned torture warrant has no realistic value and solid argument in favor of protecting the human rights of torture victims as well as in the continuation of torture practice on detainees at all.

The Effect Of Torture Methods On Society

Throughout Europe, a form a punishment known as torture, grew due to the expansion of knowledge and negatively affected European society. In a simple way, torture was a common form a punishment that was used on victims of crimes. European courts saw this idea as a great idea to use on crimes. It could make making decisions easier to decide whether the victim is guilty or not and if the rank of the crime is torture worthy. Another cause of torture growing in popularity would be due to the witch trials held in Europe during the Counter Reformation. During these trials, witchcraft went against the Church and intimidated juries which caused anyone accused to be executed. Though, as The Enlightenment came, torture took a turn on society. As The Enlightenment expanded people’s mindsets, torture then grew into various forms. Torture in the Enlightenment ages was both positively and negativaley affected. In the Enlightenment many ideas of torture being demolished arose but various formas of new and improved torture was released. Due to this, torture showed a great change from the 1000s to the 1800s. This then caused many laws and rules to be set but authorities to put regulations on some forms of torture that represented their mindsets. People agreed with the laws and now torture is only used on big crimes that go against the law. In the end, Europe then grew into a new and improved version of itself.

To understand clearer, torture existed for a variety of different reasons. Medieval Courts used this on victims of crimes. Torture was usually held by the State and excecuted by appointed officials or professionals. It mostly depended on the social status of the victim and the crime the vicitm is accused of to determine the torture device or method they must use. The victims also needed to already have “half-proof” to be tortured into admitting their crimes. They would show evidence by a witness showing the court or presenting their evidence to the crime. This shows that there is evidence showing that the victim is a major suspect to the crime and could confess under torture. It was known as an easier way to state whether a victim was guilty or not. To show whether the victim would confess their guilt. Although, some cases show that victims were tortured with no substantial evidence and for small crimes. The jury and the executioner can not rely on their decision on whether or not the crime ranks as torture. Torture was also known to be used to scare enemies into leaving their territory or to show their enemies how strong they are. They would usually capture a couple of soldiers from the opposing side and torture them to frighten their leaders and or their authorities. This was a common tactic used in many wars or disputes between two enemies. Most torture was conducted underground, away from society, in dungeons or tunnels. But in some cases there have been executions that were public and drew large crowds to form. Some forms of torutre was even considered to be entertainment where there were scheduled or well known people being executed. There was no legal regulation laid down on torture which caused any form of torture to be practiced. This then changed later due to the rise of witchcraft and new philosophies in the Age of The Enlightenment that brought people’s attention to their rights and nature.

One major cause of torture growing out of control and gaining in popularity would be the rise of witchcraft. Witchcraft rose and grew into a belief for some, but it’s known that mostly females were accused of being witches during this time. When you are accused of heresy, you are executed for going against the Church and their religion. Back then, in the time of witchcraft, anyone could be accused for witchcraft.Back then you or anyone could accuse someone for witchcraft and that person would be executed. Evidence was not very prominent at this time as the idea of witches and witchcraft went against the Church and intimidated the jury and the Court. In return, the jury and the Church would execute any witches included in any witch trials. During the Counter Reformation, which was the “peak” of witchcraft, about 50,000 people were accused and burned at the stake for heresy. Overall, about 80% of the people that were accused of witchcraft were women. Witchcraft then soon died out due to the Enlightenment bringing in new philosophies and beliefs that put witchcraft at a new perspective.

The way The Enlightenment affected torture is simple. The Enlightenment was known as a European intellectual movement which emphasized god, reason, nature, and humanity. The Enlightenment furthered the production of new torture devices as well as furthering the development of human rights. Some Enlightenment ideas changed trial procedures and advocated the respect of human rights all throughout Europe. Arguing against the death penatly, opposing torture and public trials. The Enlightenment positively went for everyone’s rights and showed the negative part of torture and what they didn’t see. People praised these ideas as they wish for more rights rather than being controlled by the Church or authorities above them. The Enlightenment also affected the decline of witchcraft by the juries not doing any more witch trials due to their fear and the fact of new philosophies and ideologies taking the world over. It was a dismissal academically to still believe in witchcraft as it was seen as poor and illiterate. The decline in witchcraft was also a decline in torture as the rise of torture as mostly due to the rise of witchfcraft.

European society was also affected by torture psychologically. Society saw the State was an enemy in the case or torture. In the rise of torture, you could be tortured for practically anything. The people were scared of being tortured, or even going outside and possibly being tortured. They believed that if it’s wrong for a member of their society to harm another member, then why is it okay for the State to harm us. Society was also affected by witnessing many public torturing daily, public torturings would be held in great plazas so crowding places. The state and it’s society should be equal, and have great communication with each other but in this case, society was growing apart from the State as they saw it as a threat to their well being. The State didn’t seem to really care about their well being or their will to survive as there are pointless torturings going all around them. There are separations between the State and society, the Court and the Church were considered higher above Society as they were the ones mostly causing all of these torturings happening. Society was also divided with clergy and nobility at the top due to them having special treatment with the State and the commoners and working class at the bottoms due to them being taxed normally and having to deal with financial issues. In almost all ranking classes, it is usually separated like said previously. Along with the people who were tortured but never killed were considered insane due to them being afraid of authorities and to even go outside and witness a public torture and remember all that has happened. Torture effected society in this way, making society not want to obey the State as they are terried of their power.

Some laws were also laid down in the 1800s to try and abolish torture and it’s dangerous culture.

To conclude, torture effected Europe negatively as a whole. Society was affected due to the State and trust issues, the Enlightenment was both affected and effected torture, and many causes of torture and what torture cause was negative. Though, Europe transformed into a new society and a stronger country.

Is Torture in Time of War Justified: Waterboarding

Greenberg, K. (2006). The torture debate in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

This book deeply analyses the different perspectives on torture in America and weighs the statements of some of the top government executives including former president George. W. Bush and the former attorney generals.

Greenberg further gathers the opinions of various military leaders on the application of different forms of torture and the effectiveness of the techniques. The book concludes with a compelling objective argument based on different myths, assumptions and views on torture.

Levinson, S. (2004). Torture: A collection. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Torture: A collection is a fact based book that reveals the numerous numbers of interrogation techniques and attempts to identify the premier practice of the techniques. The author reaches back into history to expose various primitive forms of torture that were undeniably crude and often fatal. Levinson goes on to document the evolution of torture through the dark ages to the 21st century.

Mackey, C., & Miller, G. (2004). The interrogators: Inside the secret war against Al Qaeda. New York, NY: Little, Brown.

Mackey and Miller venture into the secretive world of terrorism to write this book based on revealed facts and interviews. The book features a number of conversations the writers had with former torturers as they strive to discern the motives of the Al Qaeda.

Torturers provide revealing information regarding the procedures of torture and give their various experiences while in the field. The book concludes with a number of assumptions on Al Qaeda pertaining to their intentions and extremist ideology.

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.

McCoy focuses his book on the various interrogation tactics that have been applied by the Criminal Investigation Agency (CIA) since World War II to the current war on terror. The author unearths evidence to support claims of missing persons who vanished after being arrested by the CIA. The book also reveals the use of hallucinogens as a form of torture, a method which less known to the public.

National Security Archive-NSA (2004). . Web.

This website is very useful for acquiring information and documented evidence revealing the signed authorization by government officials allowing interrogators to torture suspects. The site gives a chronological account of some of the controversial incidents of torture, vindicated by senior officials in the White House and the Department of Defense.

Walzer, M. (2000). Just and unjust wars. New York, NY: Basic Books.

In this book, Walzer tries to reveal the significant precursors to some of the major wars. The author examines information from different sources to ascertain the accuracy of the findings. The author goes further to examine the character and personality of the warring leaders in order to justify the decisions they made relative to the outcome of the war.

Walzer discloses testimonies from victims of the war that went through torture or indefinite incarceration in an attempt to depict the ills of war. The author concluded by suggesting ways in which the wars could have been avoided and censures the leaders who perpetuated the wars.

Torture as Morally Unjustifiable Practice

Torture is the process through which individuals inflict mental or physical pain to manipulate or break the will of others. Various forms of torture have been used to coerce uncooperative individuals to divulge information or submit to preset conditions. However, regardless of the results, torture is morally unjustified because it goes against the preservation of basic human rights. This paper shall offer justifications as to why torture is morally wrong.

Over the years, the use of torture has been debated extensively. In the interest of upholding the law and preserving human dignity, torture has been deemed as an unjustifiable course of action for legal and moral reasons. However, there are cases where torture is being used despite the presence of laws against the practice. Under extreme circumstances, torture is morally justified if it leads to the protection of human lives. When dealing with moral issues, various ethical theories have been utilized to judge the validity or wrongness of the actions taken (Johnston 90). When a nation faces the imminent danger, torturing uncooperative culprits may be justified if it leads to saving lives. This is in line with the utilitarianism theory, which states that the collective good of many people is more important than the rights of an individual. This means that torture is permissible if it safeguards the lives of many (Johnston 76). Since torture is perceived as a necessary evil in cases where lives are in danger, then it is morally justified.

Similarly, the consequentialism ethics theory holds that any action taken towards solving a problem is justified by the consequences it generates (Evans 201). With this in mind, torture is justifiable because it prevents the death of many people or provides information that can avert future crimes.

On the same note, the deontological ethics states that duty should be the determining factor for all moral actions regardless of the consequences. As such, more emphasis is placed on assumed duty rather than the consequences of the given actions (Forsythe 467). Regarding torture, this theory can be used to prove its use because a nation must protect its people from danger. On this note, if torture yields the expected results, then it is justified because the duty of the government is fulfilled regardless of the consequences of taking such actions (Hersh 58).

Over the past years, social, political, and ideological perspectives have significantly changed. As such, it is important to come up with stronger measures to tackle the vices that characterize modern society. At the end of the day, our denial of the fact that torture exists and is in most cases effective should not make it unjustifiable. To facilitate equality, torture should be allowed. Simply stating that torture is not morally justified does not make it so. Its effectiveness far outweighs its moral implications (Bowden 54).

This paper was set out to evaluate whether torture was morally justifiable. To that end, ethical theories have been used to support the notion that it is permissible in extreme circumstances. The increase in terrorism and kidnapping cases necessitates the use of torture as a means to an end. As such, societies should not be held hostage by moral convictions that lead to the loss of lives. The use of torture in averting the loss of lives is the right thing to do; therefore it is morally right.

Works Cited

Bowden, Mark. 2003. “The Dark Art of Interrogation.” The Atlantic: 51-76. Print.

Evans, Rebecca. The Ethics of Torture. New York: The New Press, 2005. Print.

Forsythe, David P. 2006. “United States Policy toward Enemy Detainees in the ‘War on Terrorism.’” Human Rights Quarterly, 28:2: 465-491. Print.

Hersh, Seymour. 2004. “.” The New Yorker. Web.

Johnston, George. An Introduction to Ethics, for Training Colleges. BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009. Print.

Torture Is Not Morally Permissible

Introduction

To understand this statement we need to define the term torture. According to United Nations Convention against Torture, torture is an act of severe infliction of pain or suffering; be it mental or physical. There are three reasons that lead to torture namely to gather information, for punishment purpose and crimes of hate.

Torture is outlawed in most countries, and is considered anti-Christian by such denominations as The Roman Catholic. Torture does not work. Most people therefore say it is not permissible and only shows lack of moral authority in a society that practices it. It demeans a person’s human rights, shows lack of respect to his ego and results into hatred from the tortured.

Arguments against torture

Some philosophers argue for torture. For example, Miller states that a thief who steals a car with a child inside. The police get hold of him and have to torture him to release information on whereabouts of the vehicle, failure to which the child may die of heat stroke if not found within twenty minutes. Miller’s other example is that of a terrorist who hides a nuclear time bomb in a city.

The police must find this time bomb early enough, failure to which it will kill crowds of people. In both cases, Miller argues that torture is acceptable. Miller states that torturing the thief and the terrorist will make them furnish the police with the required information.

Miller further argues that the thief is considered derisive, pugnacious and rebellious. Miller concludes that upon beating, the thief will realize the beatings will go on until he releases the necessary information of the whereabouts of the child.

However, beating the thief is more or less likely to make the thief defiant and angry rather than repentant. He feels oppressed and hated. Other approaches to the matter would be more operative. For example, offering a gift if the thief releases the car and the child, asking the mother to plead with the thief to have mercy upon the child or opting to withdraw the charges completely. The thief is just interested in the car and he is not after killing the child.

The beatings will go on until the twentieth minute, after which this will be no more important for the sake of the child. It will only be a punishment. In reality, the thief will decline to offer the information after the twenty minutes elapse as he will be accused of murder.

In the terrorists’ scenario, torture is unlikely to be effective too. The terrorist is committed to his cause and is willing to die for the act. Often, some terrorists even go to an extent of bombing themselves. Torture will only make terrorist more reluctant to release the information1.

Terrorists may even send the police into various likely locations which may end up being fruitless searches until the bomb is detonated. This way, a terrorist escapes torture and the plan is executed. The terrorist’s community or family members may forward the information to save their relative’ hence, hindering the mission.

In both cases torture is not permissible. In the thief’s scenario, it involves subjecting one person to pain to save another. Both are human beings and need recognition. Hence, the two scenarios just show how torture works but are naïve to bring out its effects as well as the moral implications. The philosophers who propose torture fail to display how torture works and do not show evidence of its effectiveness.

Torture is not permissible as the culprit may be innocent. In some instances, innocent people are charged with holding of important information which poses a risk to the lives of people. These individuals are in most instances, unaware of what is happening. Items are stolen from a shop, but a shop attendant is accused of the offence. Robbers hijack a bus, a passer-by is accused. Bomb attacks occur; innocent citizens are hostage of the attacks.

These are some of the instances, where innocent individuals are tortured innocently. They lose their liberty, identity and their dignity. For example, a report released by wikileaks in December 2010, stated that Khaled EL-Masri who was a Germany citizen was arrested by mistake and taken to Afghanistan. His arrest was simply because his name resembled that of a real terror suspect whose name was Khalid Al-Masri. Worse still he was dumped in Albania when CIA realized he was innocent.

Torture may sometimes make people look guilty even when they are not. For example, an innocent individual is held captive of an offence, upon torture he pleads guilty to escape the injustice. In other instances, the expression of pain by the tortured convinces the witnesses and the torturer of his guilt. There is also the need to protect life. An individual should not be tortured to death for claims of committing crime2.

The tortured also have a right to sanctity of life and Kant states that it is our duty to allow this sanctity to thrive. Some individuals are however to release information they do not have a clue. An example is a terrorist’s wife who will be tortured to tell the whereabouts of her husband. A thief’s son may be exposed to torture to give information about the hidings of his father. Torturing these individuals is not permissible as they are neither involved in the criminal act itself nor the reason behind the crime.

Torturing innocent people is usually referred to as using persons as a means to an end. In other words, the torturers are willing to end crime by spilling innocent blood. One is left to wonder if prevention is really better than cure. Hence torturing innocent people is less tolerable than failing to prevent the danger that occurs to other people by not being vigilant. Torturing an innocent person is far too huge a cost for any intended purpose.

There are times when the innocent are tortured to death. This is done as a form of punishment so that others may learn from the scenario. This is wrong as life deserves preservation irrespective of conditions or results. There is a responsibility involved in killing as compared to letting a person die which does not. While killing is terrible, letting a person is merely out of negligence.

When torturing one individual to save thousands of people, the importance of torture must be made in no indefinite terms3. We are therefore required to stimulate the circumstances necessary for survival of human beings and provisionally to uphold the ends or contentment of these people. We are morally impermissible to kill our morally innocent. We should therefore make a huge sacrifice to preserve the greater innocence of individuals.

Where the individual is innocent of an offence, torture is not permissible either. This is because it is morally condemnatory and does not regard the victim. For example when we kill a terrorist, we violate his negative right of not receiving any harm although we have a duty towards the citizens to protect them.

Torture ethically tints our society. It leads to corrosion of a state’s character. As stated earlier, it is an evil that receives much condemnation from all over the world. A society that tortures its people is considered as one that lacks morals and does not uphold the rights of human beings. Christians particularly condemn the act of torturing others, quoting Jesus’ words when He forbade His disciples from giving an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Christians further claim that Jesus was tortured on the cross for our sake and fled us from the bondage of sins. Torture harms the victim, the torturer and eventually the entire society. Torture is too much an evil to be considered a means towards an end. It is considered a means through which sadists meet their satisfaction. Torture thus imparts a spirit of revenge.

Tortured individuals develop a feeling of revenge and will want to inflict the same pain and suffering upon the torturer4. For example, bombing of terrorists hiding venues makes the terrorists react angrily by bombing the attackers too. It is rarely appealing. Tolerance of torture perverts the societal morals. It shows moral decay in a society. Individuals who are subjected to torture may become rebellious after the exercise.

In fact, the rebellion might be practiced in form of a coup d’état in some countries. They may lose a sense of living and become demoralized. In an organization, employees who are subjected to torture, may become demotivated and perform poorly. This in turn may translate into low profits for the organization.

A tortured victim lacks defense. In a scenario where an individual is being tortured to reveal crucial information, his only defense is the information he is withholding. Hence when we torture individuals we deny them the peace and joy whereby individuals are furnished with the means to accomplish needs, live with a purpose and delight in pleasure with lack of pain. We therefore ought to view people as ends not means. Torturing individuals is not a means to end unfairness or to clean the world. In fact torturing a wicked person does not add any peace.

Conclusion

In conclusion therefore, torturing the innocent does not reduce peace in the world. Neither is it a means to acquire justice. Torturing people to death is inherently wrong as there is something sacred and special about sentient rational life which deserves preservation. If torture is used as an extraordinary measure for resolving our problems, its use will be normalized. Individuals henceforth be treated with a lot of brutality whenever need arises.

There will be loss of integrity and respect for human rights will be no longer upheld. In a nutshell, torture is morally disgraceful. It yields lies and hatred and demeans the torturers along with the tortured. It is a vice which we should all fight against.

Footnotes

1 The terrorist is committed to his cause and is willing to die for the act. Often, some terrorists even go to an extent of bombing themselves. Torture will only make terrorist more reluctant to release the information

2 There is also the need to protect life. An individual should not be tortured to death for claims of committing crime.

3 When torturing one individual to save thousands of people, the importance of torture must be made in no indefinite terms

4 Tortured individuals develop a feeling of revenge and will want to inflict the same pain and suffering upon the torturer

The Efficiency of Torture as an Interrogation Tool

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 Nunez’s Art in Chile’s 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.

Lithwick, D. (2008). The Bauer of Suggestion: Our Torture Policy has Deeper Roots in Fox Television than Constitution. Retrieved from<>

Luban, D. (2005). Liberalism, Torture and the Ticking Bomb. Virginia Law Review, 91(1), 1425-1461.

Sands, P. (2009). Torture is Illegal and It Never Works. The Guardian. Retrieved From <>

Torture: Various Issues and Aspects

Torture is Permissible

Torture is a topic that has attracted a lot of debate and controversy around the world because of various issues and aspects. This means that as much as torture is not good, it is permissible based on its effectiveness on diverse issues. In this case, torture can be morally justified depending on the circumstance or occurrence in question. When looked at from this perspective, it will be justifiable to use coerced interrogation for the wellbeing of a large population.

Most notably, torture has good utilities that can always outweigh its negative attributes that have been capitalized on to term it immoral. Because torture can always be unsavory based on how it is conducted, its importance in needy situations should render it moral in our society.

Torture from a utilitarian perspective

As far as a utilitarian perspective of torture is concerned, a proper cause of action should be the option that will ultimately maximize happiness. This is an ethical theory that argues that happiness should be attained by whatever means possible. When looked at from a torture point of view, the society has been evolving as time goes by which gives enough support for a utilitarian approach. Notwithstanding, some utilitarian’s have always argued in favor of torture thereby justifying it.

This therefore contravenes the aspect of happiness because there is no way torture can be done in happiness that will be achieved by whatever means possible. In this case, we should expect people to argue that torture is wrong based on the fact that it does not derive happiness that is always desired from an ethical perspective. As much as torture is acceptable in different societies, this can not hold water from a utilitarian perspective.

There has always been an argument in favor of torture from a utilitarian point of view. In this case, it is viewed that torturing bad guys will help to yield information that might be necessary to prevent various activities that might threaten peace. Naturally, speaking from an ethical perspective, torture has never been good in any way. As much as torture is not good in our society, it is always outweighed by the harm that it can prevent.

This implies that it is better to torture a bad guy or individual to prevent him or his accomplices from doing something that will be costly to the society. In a broad perspective, we all know that our actions should make other people happy rather than making them sad. This is the direct opposite with torture where it makes people sad instead of making them happy. Another important and core aspect is the fact that harming innocent people is far much worse than harming bad elements in the society.

When looked at from a utilitarian perspective, it is very easy to argue that torture as a practice should be ultimately outlawed yet the effects of not doing this are always overlooked. The core issue here is the general practice of torture and how it is undertaken or done. People argue that it is only a clearly sadistic and unconscious person who can perform torture on a fellow human being yet this is missing on the basics that guide the society in the first place.

Utilitarian’s have argued that torture is ineffective based on various aspects but we need to ask ourselves if it can be relied upon to produce good intelligence. As far as the collective consciousness of humanity is concerned, torture has been seen as evil because it eats into the core of an individual’s soul and spirit. It should be known that the utilitarian argument in relation to torture goes beyond its widely acceptable effectiveness.

Increasing Torture and the Use of Harsh Interrogation in the United States

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 won’t 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 Bush’s 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

  1. “The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
  2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s 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.

Ross, Brian., and Esposito, Richard. . abc News. 2005. Web.

Sherman, Mark. Court Says Detainees have Rights, Bucking Bush. Yahoo News. 2008. Web.

Waterboarding in Time of War: Is It Justifiable?

Introduction

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 enemy’s side pertaining to their plans, weapons, attack, motive and capacity (The NSA, 2004). This information s vital for the success of a government’s 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 side’s 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 captive’s 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 enemy’s 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 need–to-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 congenial—I don’t 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

National Security Archive-NSA (2004). The interrogation documents: Debating U.S. policy and methods. Retrieved from:

Walzer, M. (2000). Just and unjust wars. New York, NY: Basic Books.