Torture Is Inhumane Research Paper

Is Using Torture On Terrorists A Moral and Valid Way To Gain Information?

John Stuart Mill once said, “Bad men need nothing more to encompass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing”. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening in America today. Hundreds of terrorists are tortured every day. Some say that because of terrorists’ actions, they “deserve” their abuse. Victims of terrorist crimes, such as 9/11, are often the biggest supporters of terrorist abuse. However, torture is an inhumane and ineffective means of gaining information, because the methods are deplorable, the information gleaned is usually wrong, and the practice is against several laws.

Anyone who knows even the slightest inkling about torture cannot argue that it is a humane practice. At the infamous Abu Gharaib prison in Guantanamo Bay, detainees lived in horrible conditions. Prisoners were “ridden like animals, fondled by female soldiers, and forced to

retrieve food…guards had thrown in the toilet” (Martin 35). The methods of torture used on these prisoners have not been used in civilized societies since the Spanish Inquisition in the 1400s. In an interview, Mitch Frank, a reporter for Time magazine in New York, discussed how it was “standard…procedure” to “expose prisoners to incredible heat…or…douse [them] with water in a frigid room” (Frank). Using temperature changes between one and one hundred degrees should never be “standard”. If they are, it will degrade American values. So-called “stress and duress” techniques are often used. Stress and duress techniques were invented “to cause pain, distress, and humiliation without physical scars” (Head 38).
Some argue that these are fully grown men who made their choice and should be able to handle the consequences. But men were not the only ones suffering- women are also treated with cruelty. Some women were “beaten and raped” (Swanson 27). Some of these women did not choose to become terrorists. They were forced through threats to their lives and their children’s lives. Young children found with terrorists are also tortured. A boy was “hooded with three empty sand bags in 100-degree heat all day, starved, beaten, and kept in stress positions (27). Keep in mind that this boy was fourteen years old. He was not old enough to make informed, logical decisions about what he was doing. This is comparable to sending a freshman to Afghanistan, handing him a gun, and saying “shoot”. He would not fully understand the choice he was making, or the risks he was taking.
The information found from torture is often in valid. Interrogators cannot always trust material gained from torture. Andrew Brown stated in his article Tortured Truth that “there is no way for the interrogator to know [if confessions and information is true]” (12). Tortured people will often say anything to stop the intense pain they are going through. In fact, one man in the Vietnam War gave his captors “the names of the Green Bay Packers’ offensive line” rather than giving up his squadron, “knowing that providing [his captors] with false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse” (McCain 35). This proves that not all confessions will be true. Someone could give their captors any name to make the torture stop. The methods of torture are clearly too harsh.
Not all interrogations need torture to be useful. What has been called “the most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U. S. officials” required no torture at all (Ghosh 40).In fact, some prisoners are much more responsive to a softer touch. In the previously mentioned article, Ghosh says that “all it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies” (40). This was because Laden was diabetic, and that simple act of human kindness was all it took to convince him to talk. Torture is obviously unnecessary to gain information.
Torture is also extremely illegal.

In the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was ratified by the United States, torture is specifically outlawed. It clearly states in article four, paragraph one that “all acts of torture are offenses under criminal law” (2). This law is not optional, although the United States military and government have been treating it as such. Mitch Frank agrees. He says that “most experts agree that the convention against torture makes it pretty clear that you can’t put prisoners through any physical or mental stress in interrogation. Most people would agree that waterboarding constitutes as physical and mental stress. Another law, the Geneva Convention, again forbids torture. The Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit “’cruel treatment and torture’” and “’outrages upon personal dignity’” (Head 32). Yet we, as Americans, have turned a blind eye to these obvious crimes against humanity. The laws against torture must be

followed.
Some proponents of torture say that terrorists and prisoners of war “deserve” this treatment. Senator James Inhote (Republican, Oklahoma) was “outraged by the outrage” of people against torture (Zimbardo 328). Inhote claimed that the prisoners in distress were “murderers… terrorists… insurgents [with] American blood on their hands” (328). Some people, like Inhote, believe in this eye for an eye strategy. However, the UN Convention looks at it differently. In article two, paragraph two, it is stated that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever…may be invoked as justification of torture” (2). No one deserves to be tortured, no matter what they have done.
Torture is completely immoral. Because of the methods, invalid information, and laws against it, torture should not be practiced. The ways we torture prisoners are horrible. The information against it is often invalid. The laws against it are uncircumventable.