Should torture be politically and socially permissible?

 [This blog post is a condensed essay of mine from my first year at University of Birmingham©]

There is much dispute over the definition of torture. The UN and the law see it as the convention that

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." (The Telegraph 2005, author unknown).

This definition is subjected to scrutiny as many believe this convention is not stringent enough and so allows manipulation by countries in order to carry out heinous crimes through loopholes in the law. The debate over whether torture is acceptable or not differs between different countries’ perceptions. I believe torture is wrong in most cases, however it becomes the lesser of two evils in the ‘ticking time bomb’ thought experiment. In some extreme cases it may be justified but when does torture become inhumane and immoral?

All countries inherently condemn torture as a practice but most have used it to some extent. Most countries have used torture or encouraged it in some form to gain information. Countries that show “less support for outlawing torture…have suffered terrorism attacks or political violence including India, where slightly more respondents (32%) favour relaxing the rules against torture than not” (BBC World Service Poll, date and author unknown). This is because of the growing fear of violent groups (for example terrorists) resulting in more ‘encouraging’ methods of detainment. “According to Human Rights Watch, the use of torture was documented in the following countries in 2004 and 2005: China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, Morocco, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan” (infoplease 2007, author unknown). Torture has more widespread use but these are examples of countries that explicitly use torturous methods at a current time. The United States CIA use water-boarding on prisoners which the Office of Legal Counsel and Department of Justice had authorized as a procedure involved in ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’. This is a highly controversial issue as this and sleep deprivation is still used to this day as it is not considered a form of torture, thus demonstrating how many believe torture should not only be permissible but is also necessary in some cases.

The opinions put forward for torture argue that the information obtained from this is usually of high importance and extremely useful rather than for more frivolous pieces of information. “If information is given about an attack taking place in the future, military and government officials can utilize that information in a timely manner to prepare for an attack.” (Debate.org 2013, author unknown). The quality of information gained is the most important argument put forward as this end result justifies the means in which that consequence was gained. Sometimes information that was not even requested by the interrogator is gained which adds depth to the investigation. Torture will usually result in confessions or giving up essential evidence which would have otherwise taken longer or not been gained at all. People who agree with this are thinking from a consequentialist perspective, believing that torturing is a necessary evil in order to gain important information that could potentially save many lives in a timely fashion. It is argued that it is the fastest method of extracting vital data. Others argue that these criminals are deserving of punishment to some extent and torture is justified when it pays someone their dues. In this way, it also acts as a deterrent and thus prevents future crimes. It can also be argued that torture is a humane way to get answers from inhumane people. It can be relatively civilised (if properly vetted and safeguarded) compared to the crimes committed by these criminals and so some argue that we must ‘fight fire with fire’. An official who oversaw the detention of accused terrorists said “if you don’t violate someone’s human rights some of the time, you probably aren’t doing your job.” (Re-quoted by Goldsmith 2012, p64). This is an opinion held by many and so maintain that torture should be a permissible practice, however giving that duty to authorities allows for it to be manipulated for sadistic purposes. There are many more reasons that this convention should be considered unacceptable in most circumstances.

Many consider these arguments to be weak as they can be easily countered. Information gained will be useful some of the time but quite often one will confess to almost anything if tortured enough, making the information useless. Quite often the person will lie to ease their suffering (amongst many other reasons) and so torture produces invalid results, “take the example of Abu Zubaida. In the hands of the FBI, using only translators interrogating him, he revealed useful information. When he was subjected to torture techniques by the C.I.A, his information soon proved to be false or useless.” (Securing Liberty, date and author unknown). The argument that torture is a fast method of interrogation demonstrates the unemotional and impatient mind-set of the authorities. Just because it is quicker to torture for a while rather than use other means of interrogation, does not justify the practice itself. Seeking revenge through institutionalised punishment by torture is cruel and violates a person’s civil rights. It makes an authority figure almost as bad as the criminal as both persons are as barbaric as each other. ‘Fighting fire with fire’ is dangerous as it can spur on the assumed ‘enemy’ to greater acts of atrocities in their revenge. Torture could indirectly cause more violent and malicious acts from aggressive groups. These counterarguments weaken the view that torture is permissible and leads us to more reasons why it should not be allowed in most situations.

The Geneva Conventions, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations Conventions Against Torture and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Courts have all openly and explicitly condemned torture (Securing Liberty). It is internationally considered to be a ‘last resort’ or to be used in ‘exceptional circumstances’ because of its controversy over whether it can be justified. There has been many instances in which the prisoner was not found guilty but has been a victim of torture. This mistake was made with Fouad al-Rabiah, who was found innocent after suffering torture at the hands of the US in Guantánamo Bay. This will continue to happen as the convention persists, and so the practice itself is fallible. One could further add that we are autonomous beings and so should not be subjected to torture. It damages one’s psychological and physical health whilst also taking away their freedom as a human being. The aim of torture is to extract information from them, not to punish them. As authorities sometimes become vengeful over their prisoners, it can become a sadistic act rather than an interrogative one. This manipulation of the practice makes it unreliable and unacceptable. There is also no actual end one can determine for torture. This makes it a ‘slippery slope’ issue meaning that we cannot determine when to stop torturing as we do not know when we have received sufficient enough information from them. An authority could then presumably torture a person for as long as they ‘feel the need to’. This issue also examines the question when does torture become just callous and cold blooded. If ‘lower levels’ of torture do not work, when do the ‘higher levels’ stop or just become corrupt. On some occasions, the assumed terrorist is fighting for a just cause, for example Nelson Mandela. A terrorist could be fighting against a dictatorship or other undemocratic government and so in terms of the regime’s perspective, deserves torture. However it seems to other societies that this is unjust. If torture became permissible, our perception of the state would become warped. We could start to fear it and become dominated by government as “(torture) inverts our notions of agency, consent, and responsibility.” (Parry 2005, section II, c). If torture became socially and politically permissible, it would change governments and societies’ tolerance, behaviour and mentality. Nevertheless, there are some cases in which torture is necessary for its fast results.

The only situation in which torture is acceptable is in the ‘ticking time bomb’ thought experiment. Its basic premise gives a hypothetical scenario that can be applied to any circumstance in which time is the main factor. Suppose a man knows key information (in this case, the whereabouts of a nuclear bomb) about a situation which, if not dealt with promptly, will result in the death or injury of many innocent people or a vulnerable person. In this case, the deaths would be enormous and so a utilitarian viewpoint is applied; one must torture this man in order to save many lives. The torture is both necessary and justified as authorities would not have time to use any other method of interrogation. Even if it were only to save one innocent person, torture is still justified as time is something authorities do not always have and it would not be fair to let one person suffer for the evil caused by another. Sometimes there can be no other way to gain this specific information in such a time pressured scenario.

In conclusion, I believe that only in the case mentioned above can torture really be justified and therefore permissible. If time is the only thing that stands between innocent people (or person) dying or being hurt, then torture is justified. In these desperate circumstances, this practice can be allowed under strict guidelines and supervision in order to avoid sadistic and humiliating acts being inflicted on criminals. They may be corrupt and evil, however they still deserve a right to some respect otherwise we are just as bad as them. Torture should not cross into sadism, meaning it should not be used as entertainment (which it has done in various instances) or become ‘cruel and unusual’. If legislation was passed to allow torture in this instance only, stringent rules could be universally applied in order to combat ambiguity and manipulation of the law. Thus, politically it can be permissible in these circumstances only. Too long has torture been corrupt and unjust, for example the acts committed in Guantanamo Bay and other intuitions or secret operations. Therefore, it is something that requires a great amount of thought and care. However, it should not be a socially acceptable practice as this would potentially allow authorities to become too relaxed and take advantage of the public’s acceptance. The public generally dislike the convention and so it should be in order to provide adequate checks and balances on their governments. 

  

xx 

Bibliography

The Telegraph, UK News- How the law and the UN define torture, 09 Dec 2005, Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2014.

BBC World Service Poll- World Citizens Reject Torture, Global Poll Reveals, http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbctorture06/.

Information Please Database, World Statistics- Political Statistics, published as infoplease, copyright of 2007 Pearson Education Inc.

Debate.org, Big Issues-Torture Debate, copyright 2013 Debate.org, http://www.debate.org/torture/.

Jack Goldsmith, (First Edition) Power and Constraint, The Accountable Presidency after 9/11, published by W. W. Norton & Company 2012, p64.

Securing Liberty, Torture is a just means of preventing terrorism, in joint initiative of the IDEA network and its partner Open Society Foundations, http://securingliberty.idebate.org/arguments/torture.

John T Parry, The Shape of Modern Torture: Extraordinary Rendition and Ghost Detainees, Beyond Interrogation and Punishment: Torture as Total Domination, section II c, published by the Melbourne Journal of International Law 2005.