| User Title: |
TNO God |
| Posts: |
27,497 |
| Credits: |
|
|
Hi there folks...this is an essay I wrote in my first Year of University (Some time ago) about the merits of torture in war. This essay has always been my favorite piece of written work...and I want to share it.
As such, this written work is property of Jon Lyons (that is me). You are free to read it, email it around, and share it with friends and family...but this work belongs to me. This is a critical essay that was written for scholarly purposes, and it may not be re-submitted under a different name at any time. That would be plagiarism...and that is wrong.
Believe it or not...this was a 8 page (doubled spaced) essay. So...enjoy...and share your thoughts.
[DIVIDE][/DIVIDE]
Torture: Strategic Move or Deplorable Act?
Is torture a human rights violation? Is it a human rights violation if it is used to save lives? Are the people who are tortured even considered after the fact, when the lives of innocents have been saved? “Do the ends justify the means” is the real question here. Today, in the 21st century, with the threat of terrorism and extremism looming in an uncertain future, methods such as torture are used in order to retrieve information from enemy POWs and/or suspected terrorists, despite the fact that torture is universally seen as a grose human rights violation. The issue of torture is not something that can be discussed from one tier. To discuss torture, it requires something special, something that goes beyond one viewpoint. To discuss torture, it requires nothing less then a comparative critiquing. Does torture work or is it something with mostly or only counter-productive consequences? Can torture be justified or is simply unjustifiable, despite the way it was used or for what purposes? Should torture in the name of national defense be punished as a war crime or should it be overlooked as a necessary step in an unconventional war? Despite the various views on the subject, torture is seen as an extreme, counter productive action, that violates human rights but ultimately, torture is widely used to extract important information, thus, making it a justified and legal course of action during an interrogation and during a war.
Does torture work or is it something with mostly or only counter-productive consequences? The use of torture allows interrogators to use physical and psychological persuasion to make a prisoner confess to or even reveal information about a specific subject. When it comes to dealing with insurgents, “harsh treatment…whether it comes as pain, humiliation, sexual intimidation, or fear - can bring information that is useful” (Brad Knickerbocker, (2004), Can Torture Be Justified, [Electronic version] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0519/p01s01-usmi.html). Torturing enemy POW’s will lead to information, but the question of reliability is raised. Is that information truthful or is a false confession? Consider a scenario where an insurgent is tortured and reveals information. Whether or not that information was truthful or not remains to be seen, but the torture did extract information from him none-the-less. In a way, the torture did work. Furthermore, In a statement from the US Department of Justice, a government worker who tortures an al Qaeda operative, or even a suspected terrorist, “…would be doing so…to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network” (Dana Priest, R. Jeffrey Smith, (2004): writing the statement from the US Department of Justice, Memo offered Justification For The Use Of Torture, [Electronic version] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun7.html). The U.S. Government reasons that the use of torture is a legal, working, and fair tactic in the Global War on Terror on the premise that it could foil a terrorist attack. This means that permitting torture will enable our defense ministers to discover devious plots and put an end to them before innocent life is lost. The aforementioned points make it seem as if torture is okay and fine, but many human rights activists claim that torture, on any level or extreme, is unacceptable, that it is a violation of human rights, and that it does not achieve its intended purpose; which is to extract accurate information from the target of torture. According to information from Steven Welsh of the Center for Defense Information, information which human rights activists agree with, torture will not achieve its intended purpose and that “even milder torture... can result in false confessions, that is, information that is flat-out inaccurate” (Brad Knickerbocker: writing the words of Steven Welsh, (2004), Can Torture Be Justified, [Electronic version] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0519/p01s01-usmi.html). There appears to be two contradicting point here. Will the victim of torture provide a truthful or a false confession? The answer lies somewhere between basic human psychology and the idea of better safe then sorry. Not only this, but the use of torture violates the Geneva Convention and thus, using it as a means of persuasion can cause distrust, angst, and even political and social fallout towards any government enlisting the use of torture. Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute located in Oakland, California, states that “[the use of torture] can also act as a recruiting tool for terrorists…" while Former CIA chief Stansfield Turner states that the use of torture “makes US citizens, especially military personnel, more vulnerable to similar treatment…” (Brad Knickerbocker: writing the words of Ivan Eland, (2004), Can Torture Be Justified, [Electronic version] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0519/p01s01-usmi.html). So, in general, what does this mean for the use of torture? It is clear that using torture will result in a confession, regardless if the confession is truthful or not, and that torture will diminish the popularity of the USA on an international front. These two undeniable points give merit both of their respected arguments. Now, although the two aforementioned points have merit and they are undeniable, they are accompanied by two points that cannot be acknowledged by fact. Whether or not torture acts as a recruiting tool for terrorists or if allowing torture removes criminal liability, on either a national or international front, remain debatable. Based on this argument, it is more plausible to say that using interrogation and detention methods that do not include torture would, in the long run, be better for the U.S.A. then methods that do include torture. Using torture will diminish and harm the reputation of the U.S.A. not to mention the political fallout of torturing someone to receive unreliable information.
Can torture be justified or is it simply unjustifiable, despite the way it was used or for what purposes? In the Global War on Terror, the USA fights not a country, which is bound by international conventions and treaties, but rather a radical group with no allegiance to any motherland and with no regard for international conventions of war. The al-Qaeda terrorist network fights “…a war of extermination, in which postwar reconciliation is inconceivable" (Brad Knickerbocker: writing the words of John Pike, (2004), Can Torture Be Justified, [Electronic version] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0519/p01s01-usmi.html). This quote comes from John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org. He states, in general, that the reason why we have conventions such as the Geneva Convention is to prevent war crimes and atrocities which will make post war reconciliations an easier and smoother process. He goes on to say that with a rouge group such as al-Qaeda, who fights a war of extermination as stated above, they will not care about post war reconciliation, and thus, they will not abide by international conventions of war. To give another perspective on the matter, the USA would be giving a strategically advantage to al-Qaeda if they abide by international conventions of war and al-Qaeda did not. Al-Qaeda would have total freedom to do as they wish with POW’s, as seen in the case of Daniel Pearl; while the USA would be expected to give their POW’s a five star welcome. In addition to the aforementioned, al-Qaeda’s transgression of the conventions of war enables the USA and, by extension, all allied nations, to use torture as a legal weapon of war. In a statement from Dr. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, Dr. Thompson states that “the rules [can] be ignored when …the enemy is believed to have already transgressed…civilized behavior" (Brad Knickerbocker: writing the words of Dr. Loren Thompson, (2004), Can Torture Be Justified, [Electronic version] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0519/p01s01-usmi.html). In other words, Dr. Thompson is saying that since al-Qaeda has already used torture as a means of persuasion against coalition troops, then the USA, and her allies, may use torture against al-Qaeda insurgents as a means of persuasion. As previously stated, this is a tactic to level the playing field, not to abuse human rights. On the other hand, human rights activists claim that torture is unacceptable and that we must ad hear to our principles, despite the circumstances. Democratic US Senator Patrick Leahy states that torture “…undermines our reputation as a nation of laws, it hurts our credibility with other nations, and it invites others to use similar tactics.” (Patrick Leahy, (2003), Torture Is a Crime: A Letter to President George W. Bush, [Electronic version] http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/forei...ure032103.html). Mr. Leahy argues that torture does not fall in the bounds of acceptable American conduct during a war. As a developed nation that recognizes conventions of war, the US must not stoop to the levels of the enemy that they are fighting. However, the one thing that Mr. Leahy does not account for is that our enemy will have a tactical advantage over allied soldiers. Mr. Leahy’s ideas suggest that we give the enemy a liberty that we do not have. It is a good idea, in theory, but in practice, we cannot allow the enemy to have liberties that we are not allowed to exercise. Furthermore, the use of torture methods cannot be justified due to the fact it circumvents the judicial system. Senator Leahy states that “the torture of criminal suspects flagrantly violates the presumption of innocence on which our criminal jurisprudence is based” thus it cannot be allowed to be practiced or justified (Patrick Leahy, (2003), Torture Is a Crime: A Letter to President George W. Bush, [Electronic version] http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/forei...ure032103.html). Interestingly enough, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy also states that “I cannot say whether the treatment described by these Afghan prisoners’ amounts to torture under international law….” Interesting he should be talking about torture when he himself doesn’t even know if the “treatment” that these prisoners have received can even be called torture. At first glance, Senator Leahy brings up a good point, how torture circumvents the judicial process. However, when that point is evaluated; it seems his point is invalidated by his own ignorance. Regardless of Senator Leahy’s ignorance, it seems that torture does indeed do more harm then good, but it can be justified. Can something that causes more harm then good be justified? The answer is yes. Yes, it can. Take into consideration stealing bread to feed your family. Two radically different examples, yes, but the premise remains the same: Stealing, like torture, is wrong and it does not achieve as much good as it does bad, but to feed your family, much like torturing to save a nation, justifies all actions. Torture is wrong, but torture to save lives, or to sway or delay a possible attack, justifies the action of torture.
Should torture in the name of national defense be punished as a war crime or should it be overlooked as a necessary step in an unconventional war? Using torture to avert potential terrorist attacks releases the torturer from all legal liability. According to the US Justice Department; torturing suspected al Qaeda operatives for “…self-defense [of the United States] could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability” (Dana Priest, R. Jeffrey Smith, (2004): writing the statement from the US Department of Justice, Memo offered Justification For The Use Of Torture, [Electronic version] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun7.html). In effect, the above statements from the defense department state that U.S. Officials have the right to torture detainees if they have knowledge of a possible terrorist attack. In retrospect, is one life that is tortured worth as much as the many that could be saved? From a Utilitarian or logical standpoint, torturing one man to save 100 legally is permitted, and in effect, gives merit to the previous arguments of whether or not torture should be allowed and justified. However, there will always be those who say that torture can never be legally permitted or justified. According to Richard Foster, torture is not condoned by U.S. Policy and that “those who practice [torture] are [in fact], violating official U.S. policy…” (Richard Foster, (2006), Torture Cannot Be Justified, Even in a War on Terrorism, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=389770). What Mr. Foster states here is that torture violates U.S. policy concerning the treatment of POWs. What he fails to realize that in this age where we fight an enemy who does not recognize any such convention regarding the treatment of prisoners, that the notion that prisoners must be treated with dignity, is obsolete and no longer in practice. His ideals are noble, just ignorant to the current circumstances.
Using torture as a means of persuasion is a powerful argument in favor of torture; however, there are those who claim that torture is only counter-productive and does not achieve its intended goal. Can torture be justified or is simply unjustifiable, despite the way it was used or for what purposes? Should torture in the name of National defense be punished as a war crime or should it be overlooked as a necessary step in an unconventional war? Torture is seen as an extreme, counter productive action, that violates human rights but torture is also widely used to extract important information, thus, making it a justified and legal course of action during an interrogation. There have been statements from defense ministers, defense secretaries, doctors, columnists, senators, politicians, and yet the topic of torture has barely had its surface scratched. Throughout this essay I concluded several important notions that torture may work but ultimately, more harm is done then actual good, that torture, despite causing more harm then good, can be justified socially and that those who do torture people have a legal right to do so in the name of national defense and security only. Many, if not all, human rights activists will say that torture is wrong and there is no way to justify it, and those who practice torture should be punished as war criminals. They seem to forget the good people who have been captured by al-Qaeda and tortured; the many U.S. Troops that have been captured, journalists such as Daniel Pearl who were tortured and beheaded. Human rights activists scream about how we supposedly violate the rights of terrorists when these very same terrorist violate fundamental human rights everyday. No doubt digression comes to mind. It was intentional. It is important to see that many of our own people, many of our own allies, have been captured, tortured and killed by al-Qaeda, and other extremist terrorist groups. The U.S. Government wants justice brought to al-Qaeda, terrorists and other extremists. Well I say torturing the aforementioned, does in fact bring justice to them, poetic justice. When U.S. officials torture suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay these extremists and these terrorists are shown that everything they do to us will be repaid in spades. Throughout this piece, I acknowledge the fact that torture does violate human rights. However, I also acknowledge that torture; given the current circumstances, is justified and that it is a legal, fair tactic in the war on terror. If al-Qaeda was a country that abides by the conventions of war then the torture at Guantánamo Bay and other detention centers would be an adherent wrong, one could not possibly even try to justify that. However, Al-Qaeda is not a country; they are a terrorist organization that does not abide by the conventions of war. Why must we?
|
|
Torture: Strategic Move or Deplorable Act?
08-02-2012
Hybrid Mode
