Torture Debate Torture Is Unacceptable Under No

Torture Debate

Torture Is Unacceptable Under No Circumstances

Argument: torture is unacceptable because it is counterproductive

Argument: torture is unacceptable because it is illegal

Argument: torture is unacceptable because it is immoral

Is Torture Ever Acceptable in Any Way?

Although torture has existed as long as human history, liberal democracies in the last two centuries began to argue against the use of torture in all occasions because they began to see torture as a barbaric practice and morally repugnant. Nevertheless, even liberal democracies have often resorted to torture in practice, especially in times of war. Although as a matter of policy, most democracies have banned torture and have signed international conventions against the practice of torture and cruel punishments, periodic wars and crises force some policy-makers to question the wisdom of banning all kinds of torture. Thus, following the horrific attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, members of the Bush Administration began to advocate some forms of torture to extract information from terror suspects (Alvarez; Danner). Nevertheless, torture at the end is unacceptable because it is counterproductive, illegal, and immoral.

Advocates of torture argue that sometimes torture is acceptable because it may be necessary to win an unconventional war. But numerous cases from history show that torture is ultimately counterproductive. As Senator John McCain, himself a victim of torture by North Vietnamese, recently argued, torture harms war efforts rather than helping them. For example, if torture is rationalized, enemies will have at their hands even greater justification for practicing it when they capture our own troops and even civilians. Groups like Al-Qaeda may not care for international norms and morality but America may be involved in wars in the future and countries normally observing international treaties may have little reason to avoid torturing captured American soldiers (McCain). Moreover, as the systematic use of torture by the French forces in Algeria in 1950s and '60s demonstrates, torture often produces false information as those tortured are willing to admit to anything to relieve pain (Horne).

Practice of torture is also morally counterproductive. Those who torture in the long run suffer from numerous psychological and emotional experiences. Torturing another person requires that one remains to some degree indifferent to the site of another human being's unbearable pain. This indifference may have serious consequences as the torturer of terror suspects may in the future torture others, including their own family members. The torturers may also suffer from nightmarish flashbacks and may be unable to return to normal life in the future. For example, one interrogation contractor who served in Iraq, said the following years after his return from Iraq: "I was to deprive the detainee of sleep during my 12-hour shift by opening his cell every hour, forcing him to stand in a corner and stripping him of his clothes. Three years later the tables have turned. It is rare that I sleep through the night without a visit from this man. His memory harasses me as I once harassed him" (Fair). Such examples are legion (Blumenfeld).

Torture is also not acceptable because it is against domestic laws of most countries and against international treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions Against Torture, and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Members of the Bush Administration argued that the war on terror justifies "harsh interrogation techniques," i.e. torture, because it is a new kind of war and that some of the provisions of the Geneva Convention are "obsolete" (Greensburg and Dratel). But this statement is historically inaccurate and does not justify the use of torture. The French military officials, fighting against NFL forces in Algeria also claimed that it was a new kind of war and also claimed that torturing was justified (MacMaster). Moreover, when the United States or any other country claims that a new kind of war justifies the use of torture, then the world's most authoritarian states are going to use this logic to justify their own oppression of civilians under the banner of fighting terrorists.

Some advocates of the use of torture invoke the specter of "ticking-bomb" scenario, saying that in cases when there is an urgent need to extract information which may prevent terror bombing, torture may be acceptable. Professor Alan Dershowitz has been one of the advocates of this view (Wisnewski). But there are several problems with this view. Firstly, many professional interrogators argue that non-coercive methods of interrogation are usually more effective in extracting information (Applebaum). Secondly, who can define with precision the situation where torture may be acceptable or not? It is hard to impossible to delineate the line between situations when torture is "acceptable" and those when it is not. Thirdly, in numerous cases people who go through interrogations and torture turn out to be innocent (Banbury). And fourthly, who is going to carry out the process of torture? As discussed earlier, the interrogators who practice or witness torture may become morally corrupt and suffer from long-term psychological problems.