Analyzing the Interrogation Techniques

¶ … Interrogation Techniques Rodley (2000) defines torture as an authorized interrogation technique under which a person is harmed deliberately in order to force him to say or do something. Despite being forbidden by the International Law in the twentieth century international legal prohibitions, the act of torture still continues stealthily or in the open. This issue has resurfaced due to the growing fear of War of Terror and the WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction). This problem can be viewed with much more detail with the "ticking time bomb" theory.

Charles Krauthammer, the syndicated columnist and conservative political commentator, wrote in "The Truth about Torture" (2005) published in The Weekly Standard, that some changes be made to the Detainee Treatment Act (2005). The DTA was introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), forbidding all kinds of cruel treatment of the people in custody of the United States. However, Krauthammer suggests that there should be two exceptions to this Act: the ticking time bomb and the slower-fuse-high-value terrorist.

Krauthammer didn't use expressions to make the audience sad since the audience of his essay were the government policymakers and the people who read The Weekly Standard, people who are in active politics, mature and wealthy and thus, influential. His essay targets not the weak-hearted but for the educated and strong willed people (Silverberg, 2013). According to Smith (2007), if an interrogator faces a ticking time bomb emergency, all these arguments against torture would become redundant and hence forsaken.

This is because, the interrogator may believe that what he is doing is for the general, larger good, and has no bad intentions. The person will ignore the immoral views of torture and believe that the outcome of harassment may be worth it. The dilemma that the interrogator maybe faced with; allowing mass destruction or carrying out torture, may make it very difficult for him to make a decision.

Moreover, due to these complexities, Charles Krauthammer even addressed the affected population of 9/11 incident, persuading that the use of torture maybe permissible in certain extraordinary situations, that are no longer rare in the contemporary times. Krauthammer opined about McCain as a prisoner of war who was oppressive and controlling, he also stated that McCain was not realistic and by saying all these things against McCain, Krauthammer can be viewed as carrying out a cunning plan to take control of the terrorised population.

Silverberg (2013) states that for those people who actually witnessed the 9/11 incident (Marwan al-Shehhi flying the United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre), the views of Krauthammer regarding McCain may come as shocking. Krauthammer may achieve success in persuading this generation to agree to his amendments to the DTA, but for success in the long-term, Krauthammer needs to do more than just giving reference to 9/11 incident in his essay, since the generations to come won't be aware of what it was.

He should make use of more evidence and proofs in his essay to support his argument and making it plausible. His essay should be strong enough to convince the more realistic and practical segment of his readership. By weighing both sides of this debate of 'whether torture maybe allowed or not', I believe that whether torture maybe permissible or not depends on the situation. When.