Analysis Of Torture

.

Analysis of Torture Abstract In analyzing whether torturing and enemy combatant or high–value targets are moral efforts in an American free society, one could look at the war on terrorism as an basis of it being moral or not. The act of torturing a person to get information that will help the good of the country is a thin line and could be seen as a moral act in some people eyes or not. Torturing a person is inflicting injury on a person against his will and is sometimes overlooked if the reason for the torture is justified. Although torture is an inhumane act sometimes it can be acceptable in order to attain
information that will help a country of people compared to a single or group of people that are trying to cause harm against a host of people for the good of mankind. The ethical theory of utilitarianism justifies these issues as stated in the book “Ethics in Criminal Justice, In Search of the Truth” which reveals that “ethical actions as those that tend to maximize happiness and minimize pain, for the greater of happiness, the greater the moral value of the act”(Souryal, Sam, 2007). Therefore the utilitarianism theory justifies that act of torture if it is for the greater of happiness, and it makes the act of torture moral because it is for the good of mankind. Torture is defined by Cornell University Law School as “the act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based discrimination of any kind” (Cornell University Law School, 2013). Torture goes on at both sides of the fence during war time and acts of terroristic times in our society. Military personnel are even trained in torture tactics to get information from prisoners of war that are captured during war times or people that perform terroristic acts. These acts are given utilitarian passes because of the acts that were levied against a country or a specific group of people. Take for instance the terroristic act of 911, when planes were driven into buildings to kill Americans. The United States military captured Taliban members and placed them in Guantanamo Bay prisons and tortured them in order to get information on these so called terrorists to find the leaders who were responsible for the 911 attacks. Some of the torture tactics were inhumane and some were within the guidelines of the war crimes bill that was signed in the Geneva 12 convention of 1949, which established guidelines for war crimes. The definition that was used for war crimes in the Geneva 12 convention of 1949 states that “war crimes means any conduct defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions of the Geneva Article 3” (Cornell University Law School, 2013). These war crime guidelines adhere to torture when it is necessary to gain information as per the agreed upon acts of war crimes that were established by the 12 countries that were in this convention of world militaries. It would be hard to actually prosecute a person or a country for torture in times of war or during terroristic investigations, because the people of power will side with their military if the torture is to help society gave information to benefit the country in a positive outcome. If we look back into history, all countries in the world have been guilty of torturing each other in war times. The United States tortured Japanese prisoners after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Hitler’s regime after the Jewish Holocaust, and the war in Afghanistan. These tactics were all done to protect the United States from being overtaken during these war times and were justified because they were trying to win wars for the country.
Some of these torture tactics were seen as cruel or inhuman treatment as stated by the authors in the article by Cornell University School of Law, which states that “the act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering other than, pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions, including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control” (Cornell University Law School, 2013). If this definition is seen as being okay during trying times then torture would be considered as cruel or inhuman treatment as per this definition. If this is true then we as American citizens also played a part in this decision, because we went along with the torture tactics that our nation’s military personnel inflicted on those that were captured during war or terroristic investigations. Nevertheless, these events have made some people think that torture was accepted as a national security counterterrorist initiative for the sake of defending our countries democracy. Alan Dershowitz a famous lawyer from the Harvard Law School reveals these ideas about torture when he submits in the book “Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice, 2e” that
“torture might be applied and regulated by the judiciary through a torture warrant that would prescribe the kinds of torture to be inflicted and its limits”(Banks, Cyndi, 2009). Dershowitz statement is resembled in many American peoples thoughts, because they were so stunned by the 911 terroristic acts that took so many lives in our society on that horrible day that Americans will remember forever. So any type of torture that was done during these investigations would be overlooked due to the lives that were lost during this terroristic act.
On the other hand these torture tactics would also be rendered to Americans by the people that we are at war with as well. There are some people that believe that the utilitarian theory is not justified when a person is tortured as Ronald Dworkin revealed this in the book “Criminal Justice Ethics:Theory and Practice, 2e” when he revealed that “a core list of human rights, would include the right not to be tortured, and torture constitutes the most profound insult to its’ victim’s humanity, the most profound outrage of his human rights”(Banks, Cyndi, 2009). Dworkin disagrees with the act of torture and acknowledges the fact that it is an act that violates the human rights of individuals in a society. This way of thinking places blame on individuals that use torture to gain information for their benefit, because this way of gaining information violates human rights by the person that is being tortured. This same principle was given thought in our e-book readings when the author states that “the double effect principle cannot justify torture even by arguing that the pain and suffering inflicted is intended to produce greater good and with the torturer claiming he intended only the good and not the
bad consequences of the torture and the reason is that in practice of torture it is impossible to isolate the intention from the act itself” (Banks, Cyndi, 2009). This statement implies that one cannot justify hurting another person just for the reason of gaining information and that there should be other alternatives to gain the information than to inflict pain on a human being. As a human being you should have the human rights not to be tortured, this way of gaining information only causing the tortured person and his country resentment against the offenders and it becomes an eye for an eye type of relationship amongst the two countries or victims involved. Human rights seem to be thrown out the window during times of war and terroristic investigation and from my view of things, these incidents almost always ends in death or an everlasting hatred for the country and its’ residents forever. The Taliban society will forever have a hatred of American citizens because of the many deaths and tortured Taliban fighters that have had to endure the deaths of their people, and with that U. S citizens will have a hatred of the as well because of the deaths and tortures of our soldiers. This will never stop even after the smoke clears and the war is over because of the numerous unethical tactics that has been placed on both sides. Torture has embedded hatred into several cultures in the world and it will never come to an end unless we start to be some meaningful relations with these other countries and maybe then some of the hatred will be at least forgiven so our children will be able to live their lives without the threat of torture during war or terroristic investigations in our world today.

: References (Banks, Cyndi, 2009) Week 1 book. And (Souryal, Sam, 2007) week 3 book

Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, 2013 (Cornell University Law, 2013)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441