Torture is a contentious subject, particularly in this day and age. The issue of whether or not torture should be allowed under certain circumstances is one that is constantly being debated in the American political science field. When considering torture, the main question posed to the government and military-industrial complex seems to be whether or not torture is ever an acceptable way to elicit information out of an individual. The discussion of torture is a complex one, because torture is considered morally reprehensible in nearly every way; however, the discussion of torture asks the government to weigh the human rights of the individual against the possibility that that individual has information that could save the lives of tens, hundreds, thousands, or even potentially millions of innocent individuals. It is the quintessential question of what constitutes “the greater good,” and how the government and the individual answers this question is dependent upon their philosophy and methodology of considering governmental power and administrative policy.
The United States has an official policy on the physical torture of detainees, citizens, and human beings in general: the official policy states that the United States does not condone or participate in torture of any kind (Stillman, 2010). However, as recent years have shown, there is a vast difference between the official policy regarding torture and the actual actions of Americans in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay Prison (Stillman, 2010). In 2003, then-President George W. Bush stated to the world that America does not support the use of torture on any human being, and that the United States is a supporter of the Geneva Convention, a document that expressly forbids torture of any kind against any human on the planet (Stillman, 2010). According to Pfiffner’s article in the Stillman (2010) text, there are a few commonly-used justifications for torture:
1. There must be a planned attack (the bomb is still ticking).
2. The captive must know about the planned attack.
3. Torture must be the only way to obtain the information.
4. The captive must be persuaded to provide the information.
5. The information must be accurate.
6. If the information is obtained, there must be time and means to prevent the
attack. (Stillman 2010).
This seems to be a reasonable and logical explanation for why torture could, in some circumstances, be an acceptable way to elicit information from a detainee. However, Pfiffner goes on to write: “If any one of these premises is absent, torture will not solve the problem. Thus even if one posits that torture is justified in order to save innocent lives, as in the above scenario, most torture scenarios are ruled out” (Stillman, 2010). The problem of torture lies in the fact that many of these premises are impossible to verify until after the torture is performed. This is a fundamental flaw with the idea of torture and utilizing torture to obtain information from a detainee. If the torture is performed and no information was obtained, then the torture was simultaneously illegal, unethical, and unnecessary; if the information is obtained, the torture was then retroactively justified, a concept that does not exist in any type of legal codification in the United States (Stillman, 2010).
Although there are certainly problems with incorporating torture into American policy, the question still remains of the necessity of torture to the safety and security of the American people. Pfiffner (Stillman, 2010) raises excellent questions regarding the moral issues of torture and the problems of making torture a legal method for obtaining information; however, there are still people-- even people in positions of authority in the United States-- who advocate for the use of torture in very specific circumstances (Stillman, 2010). While nearly no one will disagree with the idea that torture is a morally reprehensible act, some would argue that it is a necessary act. Setting aside the moral and ethical issues of torture for a short time, it is important to discuss whether the set of premises that Pfiffner sets forth can ever be assuredly met as to justify the use of torture in certain situations.
Friedrich does not write exclusively about the issue of torture, particularly the issue of torture on foreign soil, but he does write extensively on the subject of authority in the political sphere (Stillman, 2010). Friedrich’s landmark paper on the issue of authority, policy-making, and decision-making in the American political arena is as important today as it was when it was published in the mid-1950s. Friedrich writes that “responsible conduct of administrative functions is not so much enforced as it is elicited. But it has been the contention all along that responsible conduct is never strictly enforceable, that even under the most tyrannical despot administrative officials will escape control-- in short, the problem [is] very largely a question of sound work rules and effective morale” (Stillman, 2010). These concepts seem to be largely at odds with each other, however; essentially, Friedrich is saying that there is no foolproof way to ensure that the administrative officials within the government are guaranteed to make decisions that are moral, ethical, and legal; the only way to ensure morally, ethically, and legally-sound administrative decisions from the government is to place them in the position to make good decisions (Stillman, 2010).
Friedrich postulates that a democratic government must remain fragmented, and that the idea of majority rule must be approached with extreme prejudice (Stillman, 2010). This conclusion does not bode well for the issue of torture as a device of war for the American people; if there can be no framework designed that ensures that all of Pfiffner’s premises are met, then there can be no legal, ethical, or moral justification of torture, and there can be no way for the government to order individuals to carry out actions that are morally, legally, and ethically reprehensible.
In recent years, the American government has done much legal maneuvering regarding the subject of torture. Once the scandals regarding torture at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison were revealed to the public, the government had to do serious political and legal maneuvering to justify the actions of the individuals who were in charge of those particular prisons (Stillman, 2010). One such piece of legal maneuvering, according to Pfiffner, was the re-definition of torture: a guard could torture an inmate using painful techniques, as long as the guard’s intention was to extract information, rather than to cause pain (Stillman, 2010). This type of wordplay does not further the discussion of the necessity of torture; in fact, it cheapens the discussion by arguing semantics.
Finer, on the other hand, seems to believe that Friedrich’s concern over the irresponsibility of the democratic administration is an overreaction (Stillman, 2010). Finer places much more faith in the checks and balances of the democratic political sphere, pointing out that checks and balances exist precisely to avoid the issues that Friedrich is so concerned about. Finer would argue that there can be an administrative structural framework created that allows certain individuals to use torture at certain, well-defined points to extract information from combatants to save the lives of the citizenry. Whether or not Finer himself supports the use of torture is immaterial-- Finer’s fundamental argument states that there must be a way to construct a series of checks, balances, and tests that allow for the use of torture in very specific circumstances (Stillman, 2010).
The problem with the cases of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay as examples of “necessary torture” is that the torture that occurred there occurred because of a few sick individuals who enjoyed the torture. Although it is difficult to think of a circumstance where torture is a “good” option, there was no excuse, flimsy or otherwise, for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. If torture were to be used in the public interest, it would have to be used in a circumstance where there was some evidence that the individual had knowledge that would save many lives; in the case of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, there was no such evidence.
References
Stillman, R. (2010). Public administration. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
