INTRODUCTION
In an era where national and international security is of paramount concern, it is necessary to take proactive means to facilitate that security. This may include new laws, reforming policies and passing legislation that benefits that goal. The United States is no exception. One of the most essential aspects of proactive security is information from and regarding the “enemy” in question. Unfortunately, how that information is gained remains a heavily debated topic. In fact, for some there are no limitations on those means, America should do whatever is necessary. At the same time there are many who consider the same means to be ethically questionable. This controversy, of course, relates to the use torture to extract relevant information from prisoners. Is it a necessary tool in a time of terrorism or is it a glaring example of human rights violations? The justness and condemnation of torture is an argument that does not end. However, after reviewing available sources it becomes quite clear that torture in certain cases is a necessary option if the United States hopes to protect the American people, home and abroad, from violence and prevent future attacks from occurring.
BACKGROUND
What is torture? Torture is defined as using any means of discomfort, deprivation and pain in order to extract confessions or information from detained individual within a confined setting. This includes punching, kicking and sadistic attacks for the sole purpose of causing physical pain to elicit answers (Innes, 2012). When most people think of torture they likely imagine the dungeon of a medieval castle. The walls lined with iron chains, a rack to stretch a prisoner’s limbs, whips being snapped and cages filled with half-starved people hanging from above. While these particular means are no longer used, modern day torture does exist. However, today one of the greatest arguments is what qualifies as torture and what falls under the category of interrogation and whether any part of it is ethical or does it represent human right violations. Interrogation is the use of a systematic process of persistent questioning, usually for long periods of time, in hopes of wearing down the subject and eliciting their answers. Many argue that the advanced interrogation tactics are sometimes so extreme that it borders on torture and therefore, also, raises some ethical red flags (Ramos, DuPuis & et. al., 2005). When the people have information that could threaten American security then there is a need to use advanced interrogation and even torture methods. However, again torture is different in the present day. One of the optional tortures that America has used, which has received a great deal of media attention, is “water-boarding.” Water-boarding involves restraining the subject to a board that slopes downward towards the head. In this position large quantities of water are poured, which simulates drowning (Serrano, 2007). While considered extreme it is a non-lethal and non-violent form of coercive torture. The present situation of America and its terrorist enemies may require more extreme measures to guarantee the greater safety and security to the country and the world as a whole.
DISCUSSION
America’s concern with terrorism and the proactive use of torture were not at the forefront of the American mindset for generations; all of that changed on September 11, 2001. The morning of 9/11 Al-Qaeda operatives proudly took credit for the plot to high-jack four American passenger jets and attacked the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and, the last plane, which never made it to its target, crashed in a field (Serrano, 2007). Since then we have seen a rise in terrorism, terrorist acts against Americans and even on American soil. Prisoners who have knowledge of these activities are not simply going to tell their captors what they want to know. No one is insinuating that torture is the ideal or desirable option for eliciting information, but it can be effective. Americans are torn on the issue and represent both the advantages and disadvantages of engaging in and legally allowing torture of any terrorist detainee.
Advantages:
Time is of the Essence: When it comes to the plots and plans of terrorist organizations and differing “cells” time is everything. That said it is essential that the information is gained sooner than later; the only way to facilitate that may be with torture (The Debate Organization, 2016).
The Crimes of the Prisoners: Those being detained as terrorists are responsible for planning and participating in major terrorist attacks that have caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people; they are not innocent and considering the nature of their crimes the suspension of their human rights is warranted (Cohan, 2007).
The Ethics of the Enemy: There is no means of torture that American interrogators could use that would compare with the brutality visited upon the terrorist’s prisoners; they would not and have not shown any mercy to their prisoners (The Debate Organization, 2016).
Disadvantages:
False Information: There is always the possibility that a detainee would make up false information simply to end the torture and questioning, which could lead to costly expenditures for unviable information (The Debate Organization, 2016).
Weakens International Human Rights Laws: The Geneva Laws guide the international ban on the torturing of prisoners. However, if America engages in torture and add laws making it legal, then other countries around the world may abandon torture legislature and engage in torture within their own borders as they see fit. Without the absolute ban, then it could lead to questionable acts all across the globe (Greer, 2014).
Moral High-ground: America and those countries, who have embraced that ban on the torture of prisoners, have always held the higher moral ground. The civilized nations would never lower themselves to the level of violence and cruelty that terrorist often engage in. Many argue that we will lose our ethical and moral high-ground if we stoop to the same tactics as the enemy (The Debate Organization, 2016).
These differing views are what keep the argument between torture and the potential violation of human rights a heated and perpetual one. Human rights laws are supposed to be in effect to protect people from mistreatment when detained or imprisoned, however, some argue, that the well-being of the singular needs of the one terror criminal over the potential and tangible loss of many more people’s well-being is not logical and not beneficial (Buha, 2010). That said human rights are not necessarily being benefited if it ignores the concept of the “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
These prisoners are guilty of terrorist acts, in many cases, proudly admitting to it. However, they will never give up their knowledge regardless of how many American lives may lay in the balance. Torture tactics have been implemented on occasions to extract the needed information. The American government has a responsibility to the American people to put the interests of the country above all else, in this endeavor the government presents itself as a utilitarian presence. Utilitarianism hold that the best choices are those that will provide the best outcome for the greater good and greatest number (Buha, 2010).That said it would be entirely just to place the good of the American people above the well-being of a single war criminal and his or her discomfort or pain (Cohan, 2007). Regardless of the utilitarian logic there are still laws and human rights protections that exist in the United States that cannot be violated, which does not allow the administration of cruel or unusual punishment, and similar laws are also shared in the international human rights laws, as well.
That said that America cannot participate in torture activities on American soil and it would also be considered unacceptable in international lands and water. The solution to this ethical and legal issue is locations like Guantanamo Bay. This is an “off the grid” location where the human rights laws legally do not fully extend (Maran, 2006).This means that American agencies, primarily the CIA, can participate in the more questionable tactics to gain the information that they seek. Many feel that America is cheating the system and are violating the human rights of the prisoners confined there. While there are many, particularly those that are given the task of questioning such terrorist criminals, feel that there is a need for exception to be made regarding torture when dealing with terrorism and the security of the nation and its people (Durosaro, 2014). This was something strongly supported after 9/11 and promoted by the Bush administration. However when Bush left office and Barack Obama assumed the role of President, he made quick actions to disavow the use of any forms of torture or questionable interrogation tactics, as well as, close the Guantanamo Bay facility. However, later he rescinded the order to close the facility because there were no other places to house such dangerous prisoners.
The intention of human rights was to place an equality of value on the lives within the Unites States and in an international scale as well. To set standards of conduct based upon ethical principles and prevent the unprovoked and unethical treatment of all peoples, of all races, creeds, genders and colors. However, the practice of torture of any kind sits on the edge of a very slippery slope. The idea of harming someone intentionally seems wrong to many people; the philosophy being “two wrongs do not make a right” (Harel & Sharon, 2008). The rights of the prisoners, terrorists or not, are having their human rights violated every time these advanced interrogation and torture tactics are used. However, there are many people calling for an exception to be made within the context and era of terrorism. In a time where millions of Americans, men, women and children, are in danger from the possibility of terrorist acts it is imperative that some effective measures be taken. If using some form of forcible measures to discover the connections and plans could have prevented the recent ISIS terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, would then “torture” have been acceptable.
Modern society is living an era where acts of terrorist violence seems to increase. This may be due to the current governmental administration being rather relaxed and non-proactive position on terrorism. If America took a firmer standard and supported the efforts of interrogators to do what they are trained to do, then it might lead America to pivotal information and, even, deter future terrorist acts on American soil. There is an unquestionable need for America to make exceptions in exceptional situations, like the era of terrorism (Durosaro, 2014).
CONCLUSION
For decades Americans rested assures that warfare and terrorism is something that happens abroad and never on American soil. The people of the United States saw themselves as secure and nearly untouchable. However, after 9/11 those ideas were destroyed. People did not feel safe and they feared that if such an attack could happen once, perhaps it could happen again. It changed America; in response its must also learn to change the tactics used. Torture will never be appropriate in all cases, but when it comes to threat of terrorism exceptions must be made to keep America’s borders and its people safe from present and future threats.
REFERENCES
Buha, M.J. (2010). Rule utilitarian and deontologist perspectives on comparisons of torture and
killing. Washington University Jurisprudence Review. 2(2). 304-329.
Cohan, J.A. (2007). Torture and the necessity option. Valparaiso University Law Review. 41(4).
1587-1632.
Durosaro, W.O. (2014) The use of torture in the war on terror: Should this 'exceptional measure'
be justified in 'exceptional times'? American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2(2). 88-93.
Greer, S. (2014). Is the prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment really?
‘absolute’ in international human rights law. Human Rights Law Review. 15. 101-137.
Harel, A. & Sharon, A. (2008). What is really wrong with torture? Journal of International
Criminal Justice. 6. 241-259.
Innes, B. (2012). History of Torture. Amber Books, Ltd. London. 1-192.
Marin, R. (2006).Detention and torture in Guantanamo. Social Justice. 33(4). 151-182.
Ramos, B., DuPuis, C. and et. al. (2005). Interrogation and terror. Washington University. 1-52.
Serrano, A. (2007). Water-boarding: Interrogation or torture? cobs news. 1. Retrieved March 12,
2016, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/waterboarding-interrogation-or-torture/.
The Debate Organization. (2016). History and debate of torture. The Debate Organization. 1.
Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.debate.org/torture/.
