Surprisingly, all it took to get the information out of Abu Jandal, a terrorist very close to Osama Bin Landen, was a few sugar-free cookies. Since it did not involve torture such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, or slapping, made this one of the most effective interrogation of an Al-Qaeda member by U.S officials (Ghosh). Torture has been applied for various reasons, whether it is to gain information, punish, intimidate, or control people. In general torture has been deemed wrong by public opinion. The UN Convention Against Torture elaborates that torture should not be exercised even in conditions including war or fighting terrorism. Torture is unjustifiable regardless of the situation due to its ineffectiveness, devastating effects on the victim, and corrupting psychological effect on torturer.
First of all, although it may be difficult to believe, torture is a very ineffective way of acquiring information. In one example, Bush Administration officials, including Vice president Dick Cheney, claimed that only after Abu Zubaydah was water boarded, he provided information. However, Ali Soufan, an FBI international-security consultant, claimed that once the harsh methods, which were administered by CIA-hired private contractors who had no interrogation experience, began, Abu Zubaydah as a matter of fact stopped cooperating (Ghosh). In the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, harsh techniques such as waterboarding prompted the victim to stop cooperating with the interrogators. Occasionally violence is not the key to unlocking valuable information trapped in another human being’s mind. Alternatives to torture can be employed to gain the same knowledge much more effectively. Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that people who design a...
... middle of paper ...
...y is unjustifiable but will also have ill effects towards society.
No matter what the circumstances may be, torture is deplorable because it is ineffective, traumatizes the victim, and undermines the torturer mentally. Firstly, torture is an extremely ineffective method of deriving information from a victim. In addition, torture can mentally deteriorate the victim by causing them to have an array of disorders and humiliation. Likewise, the torturer also bears psychological damage from performing such inhuman procedures. Eric Maddox, an Army staff sergeant and author of the book Mission: Black List #1 which documents his interrogations in Iraq which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein, sums it up best when he stated, "There is nothing intelligent about torture. If you have to inflict pain, then you've lost control of the situation, the subject and yourself" (Ghosh).
Some believe that even in the most dire of situations, the act of torturing a prisoner to obtain information is not the most effective or efficient way to glean accurate information about a threat or terrorist group; experts have said that it is actually a very inefficient way to go about this and even that it is only on rare occasions that this results in useful, accurate information. However, there are also those who believe the exact opposite; that the only way to get information from a terrorist, or someone believed to be involved in terrorist activity, is to mentally break them down until they have suffered enough to surrender any information they might know or to the point where they just say whatever is necessary for the “interrogation” to stop, as in 1984.
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
...s invaluable. The efficacy of torture can be seen in the capture of Zubaydah and the prevention of the “Dirty bomber,” Jose Padilla. Effectiveness has also been proven; it has hypothetically saved many lives and has prevented many plots known to the general public. Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech in 2009 that the “enhanced interrogation” of detainees “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people” (“The Report of The Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment”, 1). Since it has been deemed illegal by the UN it has to be done in secrecy. In result, it cannot be deduced how much has been prevented by this procedure since that information is classified. However, it is irrefutable that torture, in its essence, is beneficial and should be accepted as a means of ensuring public safety.
Why Waterboarding is Torture The US Reservations of the UN Convention against Torture defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information from a person.” Waterboarding fits into this definition very well. In the “How to Do It” article, waterboarding is described as filling up the upper respiratory system with water, causing both physical and mental pain. This causes the person being tortured to feel like they are drowning without them actually dying from the drowning. For the person experiencing it, it may even be worse because the article states that “his suffering must be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown,” so it is never ending.
Is the intentional pain that an individual experiences justified if there is the potential to save the lives of many? Torture is the most used weapon in the “war against terrorism” but does it work? The purpose of this essay is to identify what the motives for torturing are, the effectiveness of torture, and important issues with the whole process of torture.
Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain or suffering, mental or physical, on an individual to obtain information, to intimidate or for punishment. Torture is expressed in many ways, for example, rape, hard labour, electric shock, severe beatings, etc, and for this reason it is considered as cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Therefore, it is a violation of human rights and is strictly prohibited by international law. Michael Davis and many other individuals have stated that torture is worse than murder. He claims, “Both torture and premature death are very great evils but, if one is a greater evil than the other, it is certainly torture”. With that being said, there are three major reasons to discuss, in which, torture is not morally acceptable. However, in many cases it is considered very beneficial, but the disadvantages outweighs the benefits. Firstly, bullying is a form of torture but to a lesser extent, in which it results in an individual suffering from low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, self-harm, etc. In addition, torture is mainly used as a means to obtain information, however, it is an ineffective interrogation tool in which, the data given could be falsified. Lastly, torture is sometimes utilized to shatter the autonomy of individual, that is, the right to their freedom and independence, forcing the victim to succumb to the torturer’s way of thinking.
Torture, the most extreme form of human violence, resulting in both physical and psychological consequences. A technique of interrogation that has been proven time and time again to not only be ineffective but also a waste of time. Studies have shown that not only does torture psychologically damage the mind of the victim, but also can hurt the inflictor. If there is proof that torture is useless, why do we still use it? Torture should not be used to get information out of prisoners because of the risk of false information, enemy resistance and utter uselessness.
Enhanced interrogation methods include hypothermia, stress positions, waterboarding, and sleep deprivation. In each of these cases there have been studies such as, the one concocted by Dr. Allen Keller, of Bellevue NYU Program for Survivors of Torture. Dr. Keller once said, “Some victims were still traumatized years later. A man who had experienced waterboarding couldn’t take showers and panics when it rains.” In January 22, 2009, President Obama, signed an executive order that requires both the U.S. military and paramilitary organizations to use the Army Field Manual as the guide of getting information from prisoners, moving widely away from the Bush administration tactics. In this manual none of these enhanced interrogation methods are acceptable. If indeed, any person or persons were caught using any of these outlawed interrogation methods, they would be subject to a fine of 10,000 dollars and a life term of imprisonment. This is true even if you showed the intent to commit torture, but never actually committed the crime. If there is sufficient evidence to prove intent, then you are subject to 25 years of imprisonment. The means to not justify the necessity when it comes to enhanced interrogation. It can lead to false information, if someone is falsely accused of a crime and therefore detained by the military with no evidence and then tortured; in most scenarios an innocent person will admit to their accusation to avoid the undeniable pain of torture. There has to be due process and torture should and never will be the answer. All in all, enhanced interrogation is a technique used to induce information from possible suspects; however, this technique is immoral in ways such as, but not limited to, impacting the victims life, f...
Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...
Brian Ross, a writer for CBS news, reported that former and current intelligence officers and their supervisors “used enhanced interrogation techniques to gather intelligence information from detainees” (Ross, 2005). Intelligence officers describe having used “enhanced interrogation techniques” in bases in Northern Europe and Asia since 2002. There are six techniques used commonly. Most of the techniques are designed not to cause any permanent harm. They instill fear and
Torture can prevent the attacks resulting in terror or can go and prove no one, no one can infringe the right of Americans in the result of another attack, and therefore torture is justifiable. The similarities between ISIS and Al Qaeda is scary and torture needs to be in the back pocket of all officials to prevent similar disasters. The clock stopped ticking on 9-11, and anyone on the street can tell oneself where they were the minute they heard. The use of torture could save the lives of thousands, send the message that America is in charge, and can become more commonly accepted in the eyes of disaster. A ticking bomb could be going off at any time, it could destroy a spouse, a son, a daughter, a friend, a neighbor, or maybe the threat is to oneself, torture could get the information to destroy the bomb before it destroys one’s life. Torture is justifiable.
Though torture and enhanced interrogation are similar in that they both force information from captured individuals, they are basically different due to motives as well as extreme measures used. Enhanced interrogation is used by the United States for certain interrogation methods including “walling, facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and water boarding” (Quigley 3). This method of interrogation is protected against international criminal prosecution. However, torture is known as the practice of inflicting “cruel, inhumane, degrading infliction of severe pain” (Beehner 1) and is “often used to punish, to obtain information or a confession, to take revenge on a person or persons or create terror and fear” (Quiroga 7). Like enhanced interrogation, torture can be used to retrieve information. However, the motive of using torture is not always to save lives. Although enhanced interrogation us...
The notion that fear will make a human leak information is not a novel idea. Torture has widely been used throughout the world by many groups of people. After World War II, The Geneva Convention prohibited any nation from partaking in torture. The emergence of terrorist activity on American soil brought up the question whether torture should be advocated or prohibited from a moral standpoint. The US changed the definition of torture in order to forcibly attain potentially important information from captives. Even though the new clause suggested that many of the methods the US used were now legal, other countries still had an issue in terms of honoring the Geneva Convention and basic human rights. Advocates for torture promise that countless innocent lives can be saved from the information obtained from a single torture victim. Opponents to the advocates suggest that torture often results in misleading information. Morally, torture is not justified as it degrades humans and often leaves victims scarred for life and possibly dead.
As Shunzo Majima describes it: “According to Kantian deontology, torture cannot be morally justified if an individual’s humanity and dignity are denied through torture and the torture victim is used merely as a means for achieving the purpose of torture” (Majima, 2012, p. 138). Because of the way torture gravely violates a person’s autonomy and treats them only as a means of getting information or for some other end, it is considered inherently wrong in the eyes of deontology. People who are tortured are no longer seen as human or respected as one; instead, they are seen only as tools that can be manipulated and used in order to achieve a certain result. This, to deontology, is morally
On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...