Pros And Cons Of Torture

Elijah Damacela

draft three

A Conclusion to the Debate on Torture

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the fear of another catastrophic event in the United States became a greater concern for the American public. To subdue the growing fear amongst the public, political officials across America were compelled to address new debates on the nation’s tactics to prevent another atrocity. Possibly the most heated, and still argued debate, is that of the appropriateness of the employment of torture to acquire necessary intelligence; and as in most debates in our nation, our political representatives are bitterly divided concerning the issue. While many claim that the use of torture in any case is morally wrong, more radical advocates for the use of torture believe that it is “morally mandatory”. This ethical dilemma, however, must come to a conclusion if the nation is to improve its moral and diplomatic relations.

In order for such a conclusion to be

reached, however, a legitimate solution must be provided in which both opposing disputants come to an agreement. Such a possible solution would be that of the complete prohibition of all forms torture practiced by the United States of America, including both physical and psychological forms of suffering. The United States should defend this proposition because in all cases it is morally inadequate, constitutionally wrong, and can be easily substituted with other more effective, less demoralizing, forms of persuasion. This solution and the evidence to be subsequently provided will invalidate any opposing arguments, provided the nation is ready to put aside irrational prejudice and moral insecurities.
The justification of torture is in fact limited to how we define torture.

Torture is defined as the practice of inflicting severe physical pain or psychological anxiety in order to punish or obtain desirable information. It is a common argument amongst supporters of torture, that the use of ‘non-lethal’ psychological torture, when compared to the brutality of physical excruciation, is the lesser of the two evils. This belief, however, stands on the basis that its effects are not immediately apparent. The consequences of psychological abuse are arguably just as lethal as its physical counterparts. For example, the practice of performing a “mock execution” is essentially the act of making a victim believe they are dying or at the very least about to face death; more specifically “waterboarding” which causes the victim to believe they are being drowned. This form of abuse cannot be perceived as less harmful than that of “legitimate torture” and should never be used as an alternative to physical

abuse.
Granted it is now agreed that all forms of torture, physical or psychological, are extremely detrimental to the health of its victims; the accuracy of information obtained from suffering must likewise be reviewed. As addressed by Senator John McCain, intelligence obtained by means of torture are to be regarded as presumably false, because victims of such abuse are prone to divulge anything they believe will cease the anguish. McCain, being a former prisoner of war, also gives a first hand account in which he was able to subdue his captors by revealing to “them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse.” However, there are obviously cases in which the intelligence collected is in fact accurate, but should still be disregarded until it can be verified by a third-party source. According to retired army Colonel Jack Jacobs “if you treat people in-humanely, they're just going to tell you what they think you want to hear... Almost always, you get the best success from treating people properly.”
Despite all of the evidence supporting the prohibition of torture, there are still a plenitude of radical advocates that argue that torture is absolutely necessary to protect our nation. Addressing one of the more preposterous conversed arguments sanctioning the use of torture; the hypothetical case of the “ticking-time-bomb scenario” is an exaggerated situation that holds no credibility due to its utmost improbability and disregard to potential effectiveness. The most popular argument amongst drastic advocates for physical castigation, the “ticking-time-bomb scenario” is an argument that test the moral principles of its subjects. Essentially, the scenario illustrates a situation in which the only way to prevent thousands of deaths was to torture a terrorist that is suspected to have critical information. The issue with this scenario is that it hides the true repercussions of torture under a hypothetical situation, and forces the public to make ethical answers that work in the favor of pro-torture supporters. It has also been established that such a situation has never occurred in the United States, and that its probability is extremely rare.
Yet even if such an unlikely event was to occur, it is debated how exactly our security officials are supposed to respond if torture is illegal and all of the more adequate means of persuasion have failed. The Israeli Supreme Court has already outlawed all forms of torture, and it addressed the ticking-time-bomb scenario by saying that if “a security agent thought it was necessary to use physical pressure in order to prevent many deaths, he could take his chances, be prosecuted, and try to raise a defense of necessity.” Though some may consider that this compromise “places security officials in an impossible dilemma," this conciliation is the only way to ensure that the issuing of torture as a means of persuasion does become common practice in future “extreme” situations. Not only can allowing torture in extreme situations risk reversion to “time when torture was routine," but is also jeopardizes our American social, political, and moral values. As the nation created by the principle that all men are created equal, we are obligated to setting the standard for all other nations.
The application of all forms of torture remains a perpetual debate all over the world; despite the Geneva conventions that called for its prohibition. The United States, however, remains one of the last developed countries in the world to have never ratified the treaty since 1949. As a paragon nation of freedom and inalienable rights, we must improve our moral and political standards in all aspects, including the treatment of wartime prisoners. The use of torture is unethical and astonishingly unreliable. The arguments supporting the use of torture disregard reason and do not thoroughly consider the consequences of torture. Torture is merely another ethical dilemma we must overcome, just as we overcame other uncivilized acts of injustice.