Torture: historical contexts, ethical dimensions, and legal frameworks

Torture can be defined as the cruel and painful treatment of a human being in order to extract required information. The pain inflicted is severe to the point where the victim might wish for death rather than for the experience to continue. The aim is to exacerbate the pain to an unbearable point without killing the victim, in such a way that the victim will do anything for the possibility of release. Torture is not necessarily only physical, it can also be mental, in the form of continued suffering. The aim is the same as with physical torture: the victim is to suffer so severely that he or she would do anything to prolong the suffering.

The purpose of torture is usually either political, military, or criminal in nature. The victim is to provide a confession or information that relates either to him- or herself, or to a third party. Criminals may for example torture their victims in order to extract information on their enemies and their gangs. A political prisoner may be tortured to extract information relating to terrorist cells, and so on.

Torture is a cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment that is strongly condemned by all human rights associations, and particularly by the UN Convention Against Torture. The Convention criminalizes torture to the extent that all found guilty of this act are subject to trial under the law.

2. Torture for any purpose today, as mentioned above, is strongly condemned by all UN nations, and ratified by the UN convention Against Torture. During 1994, when the Convention was ratified by the United States, such punishment in its official capacity was already a crime in the country. To this, the Convention added that torture be criminalized in countries other than the United States, as well as that any acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment that does not amount to torture should also be criminalized. Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is abbreviated as CID, and sometimes also referred to as "torture lite."

Many of the methods used in by the United States in order to extract information from political prisoners for example can be classified as CID and hence can be viewed as punishable by a court of law. One example is the methods used in Guantanamo, where victims were held for 18 to 20 hours per day of questioning, blasting them with strobe lights and loud music, threatening them with dogs and indicating that they would hurt their mothers. Prisoners were also subjected to various forms of humiliation, including being stripped naked in front of women, or being straddled by female interrogators while being told that their comrades were killed. Prisoners were also humiliated by being led around on leashes. These actions resulted in prolonged mental and physical anguish that clearly violate the principles of the Convention.

Also reminiscent of the Guantanamo case is the video of soldiers humiliating prisoners of war during the Iraqi war. The worldwide outcry against the events in the video is indicative of its nature as a violation of what is currently accepted as basic human rights.

Even in the United States, the issue of torture is clouded by the drive to eradicate terrorism form the country. In the months and even years immediately following the 9/11 attacks, many Arabs were targeted for indefinite detention in the hope of identifying terrorist cells in the country. This violated not only the rights of the detainees themselves, but also caused mental anguish to their family members. This is also true of the families of Guantanamo detainees, who were not allowed contact with their families or the opportunity to defend themselves. This is a violation not only of the UN Convention, but also of the Constitution, which guarantees prisoners the right to trial and defense by an attorney.

Torture is not a recent phenomenon. It has existed since ancient times and has been used for a variety of purposes, which could all be condemned as equally terrible. During the Roman empire, for example, torture was used as a method of discouraging conversion to Christianity. The Spanish Inquisition, on the other hand, was meant to discourage heresy, but in the end was simply the murder of many innocent people. During Medieval times, torture was used as a form of public punishment and, most dreadfully, as not only a deterrent, but also as entertainment.

3. Torture is absolutely immoral. No conditions or circumstances would ever justify such terrible actions towards a person's fellow human beings. No crime or offense merits the terror, pain and humiliation inflicted upon a human being. No purpose is high or important enough to justify such actions. Along with the rest of the civilized world, I most strongly condemn this form of punishment. While the focus here is torture today, I am particularly horrified by the concept of torture as entertainment. It is the deliberate infliction of severe and unbearable pain upon another human being for the entertainment of others. It cannot be condoned in any civilized world. I believe that modern torture should be viewed in the same light.

Some would argue that the greater good could be served by using torture when all other avenues had been unsuccessfully explored. A popular example is the one of the person who knows how to detonate a bomb that is to kill hundreds of people. If such a person refuses to provide his information, proponents suggests that he should be tortured to save many lives. The lives of hundreds weigh more heavily in this argument than the human rights of a single person.

In my view, however, even such a utilitarian approach is not acceptable. Torturing even one person in order to serve the greater good of saving many lives is still a violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, regardless of its purpose. As such, torture violates the very principles upon which the country is built. The danger behind this is the erosion of the way of life promised by the Constitution to all citizens within the borders of the country. Even saving hundreds of lives does not merit such an erosion of public trust and peace.

The pragmatic approach is also not acceptable to me. According to such an approach, actions take place for their own merit, and are disconnected from emotions or other influencing factors. This would then merit the torture of one person for the good of the many. A further danger in such an account is however that the torture of a single person, when entirely disconnected from anything but its practical use, might encourage more uses of this form of punishment in similar situations.