Is Torture ever Acceptable

Introduction:

Torture is the act of inflicting severe physical or mental pain, as a form of punishment, or in order to force someone to do or say something. The methods can be inhumane and cruel, but some societies and governments still give their tacit approval to such acts, even though torture clearly violates the law, the rights of the people being tortured, and what our conscience tells us. However, there are still people who advocate this kind of punishments, arguing that “desperate times call for desperate measures.”

Hundreds of innocent people are injured, or have lost their lives due to the deeds of terrorists, even in the nowadays society which is supposed to be advanced, civilized, and humane. Simply imagine being someone related to a person who has suffered from the above causes: hurt, badly injured or even dead. Now ask yourself the question: if a person who has information about a terrorist attack, and he was tortured prior to the attack in order to prevent the assault, what would your response be?

The majority of people show disgust and disapproval when discussing torture, picturing one of the gross torturing scenes in the famous TV series “24”. In this television series, soldiers were given power which they abused, simply to prevent terrorist attacks or protect the civilians. However, this kind of violence taught by the media could easily twist our ideas toward nations and their governments, for none of the content in the series really existed. For example: “is the USA government really carrying out torturing programs on terrorists in secrecy, just as shown in the movies?” We don’t know for sure. 

It is fairly difficult to determine whether torture is ever acceptable. Every person has his or her own opinion considering this contradictive issue; some support the act of torture, arguing that different measures have to be taken, even by force during warring periods. However, opposition voices hail for human rights and welfares that should never be ignored even in conflicts.

Hundreds of thousands acts of tortures are being performed throughout the world every day, due to various situations. Most of them are done for bad reasons, but there are some in exchange of the greater goods. In some of the situations, it’s to prevent terrorist attacks or to get important information. How should we really just the act of Torture? And should it ever be acceptable?

First Paragraph:

Should torture be legalized in exceptional circumstances or banned unconditionally? First, we must examine the case for making legal exceptions. In order to do so, we’ll discuss a famous argument: the so called “The Ticking Bomb Scenario” (TBS), which is in central to the issue.

The Ticking bomb scenario (TBS) is a thought experiment that has been used in ethics to debate whether torture can ever be justified. However, the advocates of TBS often lack the courtesy to grant the same rights to the enemies in wars. For example, in a situation of the US army fighting against the Taliban for the cause of terrorism, the Taliban is entitled to torture captured American soldiers, in order to force them to reveal useful information; As for the army of the US, they are blinded by their law, which prohibits them from torturing Taliban captives. TBS argues that: if the enemies are doing this to our kinsmen, why can’t we hold the principle of “an eye for an eye” toward them? 

This kind of issue, whether nations and armies should follow the code of TBS or not has been debated heatedly, and to no result. But do we really need to act like the bad guys, and lower ourselves to their level? And by doing so, doesn’t it just make us as bad as the terrorists? Many organizations about human rights, professional and academic experts, have neglected the idea to legalize torture in the future and it should never be acceptable, even in a Ticking Bomb situation. They have expressed grave concern about armies following the footstep of the terrorists, by introducing torture in interrogations, will certainly mean a downfall to the ethics of the side of justice.

Torture is also pointed out and criticized as a poor vehicle for discovering the truth. As people experience torture and suffered, there’s a big chance that the tortured will invent information in order to stop the pain, and may become unable to tell the difference between fact and fiction. In additional to that, suppose that the clock of the bomb is ticking, this will give the terrorist an excellent reason to lie or to give false information in order to stall. While the officers waste their time on checking the false information, it’s more likely of the bomb to go off and thus reached the purpose of the terrorists. In the above situations, there is no further point to torture the captives.

Second Paragraph:

Osama bin Laden, the backbone and the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda, the most-wanted fugitive on the FBI’s list of terrorists, was finally caught and killed in May 2011 by the hands of the US Navy S.E.A.L. Team. A film Zero Dark Thirty was later shot in description of the whole process in capturing of the villain. 

Torture had been headlines ever since the film was shown in movie theatres worldwide, and people who support torture are having their day in the sun. These advocates delivered the message that Bin Laden was only tracked down due to the intelligence acquired through “enhanced interrogation techniques”. And it’s indeed reasonable and justified to use torturing methods such as waterboarding, to obtain information and the whereabouts of Bin Laden. “We got Bin Laden!” They said, “And it was torture that led us to today’s success.”

Many disagree, for torture is illegal under the international law, and any nation caught to be doing so is most likely to be despised by the others. No matter how effective torture is, it’s still too big a risk for the country’s reputation. Statistics also prove that Al Qaeda’s number one recruiting tool is to badmouth about American’s use of torture, tricking their youths and children into believing the evilness of the USA, and that it’s interrogating and hurting their countrymen. Now just imagine the influences it would bring if all these rumors were true.

On the other hand, torture is likely to produce false intelligence. At the worst time, the tortured may even be implicated and convicted for crimes they didn’t commit. Precious time could be wasted on these false evidence; and while the act of torture still remains illegal, all the information extracted through this kind of interrogation method cannot be used as evidence in the court of law, which makes it just harder to bring terrorists to justice for the crimes they committed.

So why use torture when it entails so many disadvantages and risks? If we could think of a better way to extract the intelligence from the suspects without the need of violence, threats, nor psychological pressure. Any other method is sure to provide much convenience in the retrieval of useful information rather than false data.

Conclusion：

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.