Human rights and torture

Human Rights - Torture

Torture is banned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1984 and has been ratified by 129 countries, including the United States in 1994. CAT defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining information... Or confession." CAT makes clear that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency may be invoked as a justification for torture." Following the tragic events of September 11th, public sentiment and perhaps even practice regarding these moral codes has dramatically changed, with many traditionally on the liberal side of the fence saying that new rules are needed to fight a new kind of war. However, what's really needed is the following of a sound methodology rather than public hysteria to determine when moral codes should be revisited.

Harvard professor, Alan Dershowitz, generally considered a defender of civil liberties, is now championing the use of torture warrants for what he dubs the "ticking time bomb" scenario. Dershowitz gives the following hypothetical "ticking time bomb" example to support his view: "There's a terrorist attack. A lot of people have just been killed in New York. They capture one of the terrorists, who says, "Guess what, there's another bomb out there, it is going to kill a lot more, but I'm not telling you where it is." In this type of case, Dershowitz believes that torture is justified provided that a torture warrant is judicially approved and monitored by either the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice. Dershowitz goes on to explain that torture is already a common practice and concludes that torture warrants would actually reduce torture by making it more open and assigning accountability.

Unfortunately, Dershowitz may be right, at least as far as the prevalence of torture. In the late 1980s, the U.N. estimated that torture was currently and systematically practiced in at least thirty countries and Amnesty International brought to the attention of the UN's Special Rapporteur on Torture cases from forty-three countries. Even the U.S., a country that represents itself as a world-wide protector of human rights, the moral codes guiding torture appear to have taken on a new dimension following September 11. For example, the U.S. is now under scrutiny for its activities at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. naval base in Cube used to house suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Among many atrocities, one former prison claims he endured sexual assault, electric shock treatments and a beating by more than a dozen men. To stop the abuse, he said he signed confessions for crimes he did not commit. Yet another freed detainee states that he witnessed the killing of two fellow detainees by U.S. interrogators. Like the other prisoner, he said that a confession he signed at Guantanamo Bay was executed "by coercion, and under duress." In addition to the suspected prisoner abuse, the U.S. appears more willing to ally itself with nations in which torture and other forms of human rights violations are widespread to win its war against terrorism. This is seen by some as tacitly condoning serious human rights violations.

Are comments by Dershowitz and actions by the United States warranted? By what criteria should moral codes be revised? While the answers to these questions are highly subjective, author Thomas Pogge in the book World Poverty and Human Rights attempts to provide a formal methodology for the right to change a moral code. He does so by requiring that a moral code be proven incoherent. This, according to Pogge, means that the moral code must contain a counterproductive loophole meeting the following two criteria:

The relevant incentive must be an ideal one, so that the code can be said to guide agents toward the regrettable conduct."

The conduct it encourages must be regrettable in itself rather than in virtue of any further effects it may bring about, however predictably."

In more layman's terms, these two requirements translate into a code that makes people act in ways that defeats the overall purpose of the code and that encourages regrettable conduct.

Dershowitz's line of reasoning comes closet to Pogge's requirement that a moral code must cause people to act in ways that defeat the overall purpose of the code for it to require change. Because moral code doesn't allow torture, it occurs more frequent because it is conducted covertly. This is flawed logic at its worse. Consider the following analogy: a) Murder is illegal. b) Murder still occurs frequently. c) Legalize murder so we can better control it. This may seem extreme, but that's how absurd Dershowitz's statements are when placed in the context of a logical methodology such as Pogge's. On the other hand, the U.S. might try to justify its actions by stating the moral codes encourage regrettable conduct. That is, prisoners are able to withhold information about terrorist activities because moral codes protect them from torture. but, as Executive Director of Amnesty International, William Schulz, so aptly explains: