Security and Human Rights Mutually

¶ … Security and Human Rights Mutually Exclusive

Is torture an appropriate policy response to threats to security?

Over the last several years, the issue of torture has been increasingly brought to the forefront. Part of the reason for this, is because there has continuous been debate about using these kinds of techniques to obtain information about possible terrorist related activities in the future. As a result, there are a host of opinions on this subject and if it is appropriate-based up on possible national security implications. To determine these contrasting views we will compare and contrast two different pieces of literature on the subject. This is when we can offer specific insights that will illustrate as to if this is an appropriate policy response.

The piece of literature that was written by Wanchekon (2007), he is talking about how torture is inappropriate on the modern battlefield. The reason why, is because it gives the enemy a strategic advantage that they could use in recruiting and as way of intimidating the local population not to cooperate. Once this occurs, it means that winning the hearts and minds of the public will difficult. This is because the use of torture has become even more wide spread. Evidence of this can be seen with comments from the author with him writing, "Under the social control case, torture becomes more wide spread and cruel. It does not discriminate between the strong and the weak victims or between the guilty and innocent ones. All types of torturers behave as if they were sadists." (Wanchekon, 2007, pg. 608) This is important, because it is showing how the use of torture by society will often lead to other abuses down the road. As these increased powers mean, that innocent people will be targeted and subject to these different provisions. This is the point that a society will begin to lose their freedom at the hands of those who are engaging in these kinds of practices.

The piece of literature that was written by Danner (2004), is discussing how the use of torture is helping to provide intelligence officials and law enforcement with the tools they needs to prevent future terrorist attacks. This is because, most suspects will more than likely only begin talking after they have been subject to extreme amounts of pressure. Evidence of this can be seen with Danner writing, "American officials acknowledged that such techniques were recently applied as a part of the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the highest ranking Al Qaeda operative in custody until the capture of Mr. Mohamed. Painkillers were withheld from Zubaydah, who was shot several times during his capture in Pakistan." (Danner, 2004, pg. 7) This is important, because it is showing how the use of torture can help to provide officials with information about terrorist related activities. However, during the process of obtaining this information is when they will have to use different tactics that will place physical and emotional pressure on the terrorist. This is when they will begin to openly talking about future activities and plans.

When you compare the two works with one another, it is clear that they are providing us with different views on the subject of torture. As this technique will more than likely lead to the loss of basic rights in society, due to the fact that this practice is becoming more common. Once this takes place, is when innocent people will be tortured. This is the point that the basic freedoms of the nation will disappear.