The Ethical Question of the Use of Torture - Essay Example

Torture: a morally justifiable tool? Introduction Technically defined as the intentional infliction of extreme physical and/or mental suffering on a non-consenting and defenseless person resulting to the intentional substantial curtailment of the exercise of the person’s autonomy, which is undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim’s will (Miller 2008), torture per se is ethically unacceptable and socially deplorable. In fact, the existence of numerous treatises among the nations of the world (see ICRC 1929; UNO 1948; UNO 1966; World Medical Association 1975; Organization of American States 1985; UNO 1985; War Crimes Act 1996; and UNO 2002) that categorically prohibit torture testifies to the global censure against it. However, it also cannot be denied that currently torture is still being employed in many countries (see Human Rights Watch 1999). It is being employed against suspected Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, and against the Palestinians in Israeli custody (Bamford 2004); it is the usual fate of prisoners in Iraq in the hands of the American and British personnel (see Drum 2004); it’s a common practice in China as well as in Pakistan. Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan’s killer autocrat, has become (in)famous as efficient extractor of crucial information from terrorist prisoners; the Egyptian, Syrian, Saudi and Jordanian torturers are considered the best tormentors in the world that the US even outsources to them a number of its “big catch” (see Alibhai-Brown 2005). From the preceding, one understands that torture is, on one hand, universally determined to be ethically unacceptable as it is said to belong to the olden civilization. On the other hand, though, it is being seen as an effective tool in extraction of valuable information from crime and/or terror suspects. This ambivalence on the judgment over torture only points out that indeed it is morally nuanced. The macro view With the main ethical systems that are in place as the prism through which torture’s permissibility is determined, the shades of moral judgment involving torture are easily settled. On the basis of deontological theory of ethics, which maintains general rules and values, such as human rights or the inherent universal dignity of human beings, that require to be respected at all times and in all given situations, torture is never in anyway acceptable regardless of the circumstances and the intended outcome. But, there is the utilitarian ethical viewpoint that bases morality on the intended outcome of an action. An advocate of this thinking holds that, when the over-all outcomes of lives that would be saved due to torture are positive, torture may be admissible. Theories would always have their important roles to play in resolving current ethical issues such as torture. But, given the assertion of this paper that the moral judgment over practices involving torment is in fact nuanced, it comes as a requirement that due diligence to the details is carefully observed. In support of the use of torture Slackman (2004) cites the case involving the Filipino police force who, in 1995, employed torture against Abdul Hakim Murad. The police interrogators broke his ribs, burned him with cigarettes, forced water down his throat, and threatened to turn him over to the Israelis. The fruit of this process was the uncovering of the plot to blow up eleven airlines, crash another into the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, and assassinate the pope. To date, the most often justification for torture is that it indeed works in the extraction of information or confession from terror suspects; and that torture is required in circumstances when the greater good is in danger (as a result of the concealment of “that” information). It is on this account that the use of torture has found allies among a number of respective personalities, and even find support from the general public (see World Publics Reject Torture 2008). Michael Ignatieff, the former director of a prominent human rights center at Harvard University, favors a judicious use of torture as a concession to the government’s need to traffic in evils (see Friel & Falk 2004, pp. 151-153). In conjuring his position, Ignatieff maintains that what he actually approves is coercive interrogation and not torture. He maintains that, when weighed, a public disaster is more evil than the surrender of some civil liberties (Elder 2004). Affirming this line of thought, Alibhai-Brown (2005) maintains that in circumstances that are extraordinarily dangerous the need for information outweighs the moral and ethical considerations against torture. Saying that he conceives of the unthinkable and moves beyond the conventional wisdom, Alan M. Dershowitz, a celebrated American defense attorney and Harvard law professor, stands for the use of torture. He argues, in fact, for the legalization of torture since law enforcement does it anyway (see also Drum 2004). Once legalized, the court and the judges would then need to issue what he calls torture warrants – which, in practice, would result to subjection of this practice under judicially monitored physical measures that would ensure that the pain inflicted on the suspect does not leave any lasting damage (Bamford 2002). For the intent of torture is not to permanently disable a suspect, but only to break one to make him/her reveal information that prove crucial to save many lives (Slackman 2004). Dershowitz even recommends one form of torture – i.e., the shoving of sterilized needles under the fingernails (Bamford 2002). Richard Posner, an influential legal scholar and judge in the US, admits the permissibility of torture when stakes are high (see Eyel 2003). He is quoted to have said that if torture is the only means to obtain the crucial information to deter the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, it should be to obtain the information. He is said to have even added that anyone who doubts the wisdom of this line of thinking is not worthy to exercise any position of responsibility (Slackman 2004). Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke (2005), professors of law at Deakin University in Victoria, Australia, argue that when peoples’ lives are in imminent danger, torture may be inflicted on suspect. They reason that society would find it legitimate and acceptable that one person is sacrificed to save thousand lives. Seeing torture as a tool to counter terror plots and to save more lives, they hold that the end justifies the means. Even a Baptist authority, Albert Mohler (2005), opines that in certain conditions torture may be made necessary. Accordingly, what is needed is to rethink the conventional morality and the common understanding of the use of force. Opposing the practice of torture Those who oppose the practice of torture have their own story to tell: Saddam Saleh Aboud, an Iraqi man, was tortured at Abu Ghraib prison for over eighteen days. He was hooded and handcuff naked, doused with water, threatened with rape and forced to sit in his own urine. Ravaged by his experience, he confessed to have known the Islamic opposition and that he’s actually Osama bin Laden – disguised! (Slackman 2004). Too, there was also Boris Botvinnik, a university student in Moscow. He was captured and tortured in 1996. Breaking in, he subsequently confessed to a murder and robbery. He recounted later on that he admitted the crimes after his vision was severely affected s a result of repeated bouts of near asphyxiation. He confessed because he wanted to salvage what was remaining in him (see Human Rights Watch 1999). Different individuals and groups strongly argue against torture. And, they specifically negate the basic premise of those who support it. Darius Rejali, a political scientist, holds that torture is ineffective tool for information or intelligence gathering. Referring to the same case involving Abdul Hakim Murad, Rejali noted that it took the Filipino policemen more than a month to extract the information from the terror suspect. He argued that such a delay illustrates the impracticality, if not inutility, of torture as an intelligence tool, since it would not have made it possible to head off an impending threat. In fact, he said, that if there is any function for torture, it is its being a tool just for intimidation (see Slackman 2004). In addition, Human Rights Watch (1999) claim that torture as a tool for information gathering is very unreliable and problematic; it forces one to tell whatever the torturers would want to get only to have them stop the deed. As a matter of fact, there is an end to utilitarianism’s seeming endorsement of the use of torture for greater good. Besides being not the way to win the hearts and minds of the people (see Slackman 2004), torture also lends itself as a method of terrorizing and eventually subjugating the population by the state forces. This is precisely the point by Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist and revolutionary. In his book, The Wretched of the Earth (2004), he reports about what the French military men called preventative torture against the innocent Algerians intending to simply stop the latter from their future activities. One infers from this that torture may serve other functions – other than a tool for intelligence gathering – such as the crippling of popular clamor (for freedom or a social change) and/or destruction of legal and constitutional institutions of the state. Drum (2004), for his part, sees the menace of torture as it may be experienced even by the innocents. A report by the International Red Cross in 2004 confirms his position, citing that arrests by mistaken identity accounted for some seventy per cent to ninety per cent (70%-90%) of arrests in Iraq by the coalition forces. Hensher (2007) scrutinizes the arguments for torture as intelligence tool and argues that these start off with wrong assumptions. Firstly, it assumes that a person who refuses to spill the bean – so to speak – is in fact in possession of the crucial information. Secondly, it take for granted that only torture – i.e., there is no other conceivable means – could possibly extract “that” information. Thirdly, it presupposes that the information that a suspect has is absolutely accurate. Fourthly, it believes that the victim of the torture will always make a quick and full return to his/her physical and emotional integrity. Fifthly, it presumes that the information that the authorities would always be able to extract refers to a bomb that is about to go off in a matter of hours. Finally, it assumes that torture will result to the prevention of an imminent terrorist attack. Hensher (2007) posits that what is actually right is that torture leads to the admission of anything at all as long as the torturers would stop pulling the victim’s fingernails out. Conclusion What is obvious from the preceding discussion is that the debate on the moral (and social) acceptability of torture as a legitimate tool specifically for intelligence gathering is far from being over. Admittedly, with the emotional coloring of the arguments set aside, both sides of the divide do have their sound reasoning to justify their positions. Those who root for the use of torture think of the extraordinary time we are in – which is characterized by threats of terrorism the scale of which is unprecedented just as the world has seen in 9/11. Obviously, they struggle to justify their ground of proposing a measure that is known in history to be inhuman and defeatist of the requirements of justice. They propose a different name; they suggest legalization and regulation of the practice. What becomes apparent is the fact that advocates of the use of torture are first and foremost out to deal with the extraordinary challenge of the extraordinary time. One may bet that should there be an alternative measure – which in essence is distinct from torture but efficiently effects what torture purportedly accomplishes – they would go for it. On the other hand, the opponents of torture seem to have more reasons to buttress their position. With their grounds backed by both the theories of deontology and utilitarianism, they seem to be able to dissect the pro-torture arguments, and see the gaps in the details. But they do not have the words to utter to the multitudes who happen to become victims when the suspect who was not tortured turns out to be the real bearer of genuine intelligence information. This issue may be framed in different categories: collective versus individual, rights versus obligations, morality versus practicality – among others. But what remains constant is that this unending debate is far from being over, as this debate is very much nuanced. Reference List: Alibhai-Brown, Y. (2005). People matter more than holy books. The Independent. Retrieved 30 January 2010 from http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-people-matter-more-than-holy-books-491722.html Bagaric, M. & Clarke, J. (2007). Torture: When the unthinkable is permissible. New York: State University of New York Press. Bamford, J. (2002). Strategic thinking. The Washington Post. Retrieved 1 February 2010 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43691-2002Sep5¬Found=true Drum, K. (2004). Red Cross Report on Abu Ghraib. Retrieved 1 February 2010 from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003886.php Elder, R. (2004). Bomb is ticking; do you OK torture? Retrieved 2 February 2010 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/torture-ethics.html Fannon, F. (2004) The wretched of the earth, trans. R. Philcoax. New York: Grove Press. Friel, H. & Frank, R. (2004). The record of the paper: How the New York Times misreports US foreign policy. New York: Verso. Hensher, P. (2007). Hollywood is helping us to learn to love torture. Retrieved 1 February 2010 from http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/philip-hensher-hollywood-is-helping-us-learn-to-love-torture-454657.html Human Rights Watch. (1999). Confessions at any cost: Police torture in Russia. Retrieved 30 January 2010 from http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/russia/ ICRC. (1929). Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. Retrieved 31 January 2010 from http://www.icrc.org/IHL.NSF/FULL/305?OpenDocument Miller, S. (2008). Torture. Stanford Encyclopedia. Retrieved 29 January 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ Mohler, A. (2005). Torture on the war on terror: We must not add dirty rules to dirty hands. Retrieved 1 February 2010 from http://www.albertmohler.com/?cat=Commentary&cdate=2005-12-20 Organization of American States. (1985). Inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture. Retrieved 31 January 2010 from http:www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3620.html Press, E. (2003). In torture we trust? Retrieved 1 February 2010 from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Torture/Torture_We_Trust.html Slackman, M. (2004). What’s wrong with torturing a Qaeda higher-up? The New York Times. Retrieved 31 January 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/weekinreview/16slac.html?pagewanted=1 United Nations Organization. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved 31 January 2010 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ United Nations Organization. (1966). International covenant on civil and political rights. Retrieved 31 January 2010 from http://www.hrcr.org/docs/Civil&Political/intlcivpol.html United Nations Organization. (1985). Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Retrieved 31 January 2010 from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html United Nations Organization. (2002). Optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Retrieved 31 January 2010 from http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/optprotort.html War Crimes Act. (1996). Retrieved 31 January 2010 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html World Medical Association. (1975). Declaration of Tokyo. Retrieved 31 January 2010 from http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/tokyo/ World publics reject torture, (2008). Retrieved 1 February 2010 from http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btjusticehuman_rightsra/496.php Read More