Torture the Human Rights Situation

Torture

The human rights situation seems to have taken a new perspective post September 11. Tackling terrorism has gained precedence over every other issue. Today we have a situation where torture continues to be a much used weapon not only by terror outfits that have a failed moral compass but also by governments of civilized societies across the world. The horrific episodes of torture that came out of the Guantanamo bay detention camp for terrorists and suspected terrorists shocked the entire world driving a new debate on the use and abuse of torture in American terror detention camps. As a signatory of article 2(2) of the 1987 UN treaty that states '[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever[emphasis added] whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, maybe invoked as a justification of torture', [Sanford Levinson, pg 1] the use of torture by American investigators and law enforcement agencies has now come under moral purview with a heated debate among the public and policy makers. A brief overview of torture from a moral standpoint would help throw more insight into the topic.

Henry Shue argues that while combat killing and inflicting deaths on a battleground atleast have a moral justification of being a 'fair fight', torture is nothing but absolute and merciless infliction of pain on a defenseless victim. If international maritime laws do not permit killing surrendered opposition, then there is little doubt that torture by view of being an assault on a defenseless person, fails to be morally justifiable under any code of just war. If 'extraction of information' from the victim is the purpose of torture (interrogational torture) then the victim can find relief by condescending to the demands of the torturer. [Henry Shue] But according to Kantian moral absolutism torture cannot be justified under any pretext and so even the 'interrogational torture' is found lacking moral justification. As Thomas Nagel, the American philosopher stated in his essay 'War and Massacre', 'One could even say, as one bayonets an enemy soldier, "it's either you or me." But one cannot really say while torturing a prisoner, "You understand, I have to pull out your fingernails because it is absolutely essential that we have the names of your confederates'. [Sanford Levinson, pg 4]

There is also a problem of actually categorizing and defining torture. For instance, the Netherlands protested to the UN that the U.S. definition of torture "appears to restrict the scope of the definition of torture under article 1 of the convention." [Sanford Levinson, pg 6] This means that terror suspects can be subjected to 'inhuman and degrading acts' without being classified as torture. As Florencio Cabbellero, a Honduran torturer trained by U.S. military says, ' They make him stand up, don't let him sleep, keep him naked and isolated, put rats and cockroaches in his cell, give him bad food, serve him dead animals throw water on him, change the temperature. The Americans didn't accept physical torture' [Sanford Levinson, pg 7] Thus a distorted definition of torture could be used to evade appeals against human rights violation.

Moral justification of torture should satisfy some conditions. Torture should be the least harmful way towards a greater goal. Torture should have a particular end point and compliance from the victim should guarantee him freedom and relief from the torture. The greater goal that is mentioned may involve the potential to save countless lives or to avert a catastrophe. If by torture it is possible to obtain crucial information that could avoid an 'enormous potential harm', then that torture is certainly permissible. However, in truth, such incidences are rare and hence based on this pretext there is every danger that torture might become an administrative practice. There is every possibility that torture might become a systemic abuse tool. Thus only if morally permissible conditions prevail can torture be pursued. Another popular perspective is that bringing torture under a legal prism would make it a more effective tool as officials would only recourse to torture if the case seems really justified. If torture is accountable, then it becomes more justified. [Henry Shue] However, as John Conroy writes, 'Throughout the world torturers are rarely punished, and when they are, the punishment rarely corresponds to the severity of the crime' [Sanford Levinson, pg 9]