Conclusion of Is Torture Ever Acceptable?

Outlined in this essay, is the use of torture in conflicts against terrorism, and whether torture should be used as an interrogation technique on counterterrorist strategy. Incidents of torture were happening and reported in many places; from Guantanamo Bay, Air Base in the Middle East, Iraq and other regions. All of these events are triggering questions such as whether torture could really be justified, in order to protect human rights from terrorist threats. 

However, we’ve come to an agreement in the end of the paper: even though the right to live and security are the basic and fundamental human right, which is also in a state that should be granted protection, it still should not include further violations of human rights standards. In our knowledge, the protection against torture is also a universal right and its use is prohibited by international law without exceptions. 

Torture is morally wrong because it violates and perverts human dignity in an irreversible way. Plus that it’s also not an efficient form of intelligence gathering than other legal interrogation techniques, and frequently leads to false confessions, as discussed in the second paragraph of the essay. On the contrary, torture triggers a series of negative long-term consequences and bad reputation. So why insist on the use of torture when it can cause so many negative effects?

What if torture can “really” and “effectively” stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber? Will it make torture acceptable and be justified? What's wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock on a villain in exchange of the precious lives of so many others?

No, I don’t think torture will be justified even then, and the simple answer to that, is the rule of law. Our Constitution grants protection, equality and rights to every human being. And it’s drafted by our ancestors who had seen the world without law, for which they believed that we could be better than that. Every nation should recognize that each individual has an inherent right to personal dignity, to justice, to freedom from cruelness and unusual punishment, no matter what.

These values should be preached to the world, and made clear that there are certain lines that we will not pass, for we respect the dignity of every human being. And if the leader of a country gives permission to the use of torture, what else difference will he or she be from those tyrants, dictators that don’t govern by the rule of law, but by brute force.

We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain circumstances and still be true to our values. But this is indeed false compromise: either that we believe in the dignity of individual, the prohibition of cruelness, unusual punishments, and trust our hands in the rule of law; or we don't. There is no gray area in between. We shouldn’t and must not use torture under any circumstances, for we are better than that.