Pros And Cons Of Torture
According to Merriam-Webster.com, “Torture is defined as the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something.” While torture is widely criticized by the United Nations and Amnesty International, organizations that are supposedly for the progression of human rights, there is no denying that the United States, in compliance with the Central Intelligence Agency, has received valuable intel from the use of torture. Torture is sometimes a necessary evil that is needed in order to capture terrorists and save lives. The United Nations, under Article II states, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or
…show more content…
any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” In simpler terms, if the United States had a terrorist who had admitted to knowing the location of a hypothetical bomb, but refused to divulge that information to the United States, putting thousands of lives at risk, we cannot and should not consider torture as a means to extract that information. In this situation, it can be construed that the U.N. values the safety of terrorists above the lives of the innocent. In retrospect, it makes one wonder if the U.N. isn’t just as guilty of killing innocent lives as the terrorists. It’s justified in this hypothetical situation because it’s a timed sensitive case where the interrogators do not have the time to try to intimate or make friends with the bad guys. French Nobel Laureate Albert Camus states in “The History of Torture” by Brian Innes, that “Torture has perhaps saved some, at the expense of honor, by uncovering 30 bombs, but at the same time it has created 50 new terrorists who, operating in some way and another place would cause the death of even more innocent people.” The question then is, if we decide not to use torture and the bombs the terrorists planted blow up, what’s to stop them from building more and harming even more people?
If torture only proves effective in some situations, should we stop torture all together and just let the bombs go off, because a few people deem it morally unacceptable? Despite Camus’ claims that torture would create fifty new terrorists, there is not sustainable information to back his claims up. The supposed risk of torture is not a great enough reason to stop altogether. If Camus prefers not to torture a known terrorist who is planning to harm people, then by all means he should not have to do that, but then those at risk of the hypothetical bomb would only have Camus to blame. In the United States, people in life-threatening situations have the right to self-defense. When it comes to torturing terrorists, one can argue that the United States is acting in self-defense. Amnesty International, which is a non-profit organization that fights for human rights, often argues that torture is cruel and inhuman. It can also be argued that it is cruel and inhuman to put thousands of innocent lives at risk for the well-being of a terrorist, who is maliciously withholding
information. In hostage situations if a police officer has a clear shot of the bad guy, it is not only acceptable, but encouraged to shoot them. Why is it okay to kill the hostage taker but not the terrorist who plans on killing many? In a hostage situation, the only difference between the hostage taker and the terrorist is that the latter gets to live. As Mirko Bagaric states perfectly in his article, A Case for Torture “Lost lives hurt a lot more then bent principles.” The well-being of society should always be put above those who wish to cause harm. The United States relies heavily on the Central Intelligence Agency, better known as the
CIA, to analyze and evaluate foreign intelligence. To thwart suspected terrorists and extract information, the CIA devised a program called EIT, which stands for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. In an article by Kevin Drum, he quotes CIA veteran Jose Rodriquez’s explanation of the program: Detainees were given the opportunity to cooperate. If they resisted and were believed to hold critical information, they might receive — with Washington’s approval — some of the enhanced techniques, such as being grabbed by the collar, deprived of sleep or, in rare cases, waterboarding- which gives the sensation of drowning. When the detainee became compliant, the techniques stopped — forever. In 2014, the CIA gave a press release entitled “CIA Fact Sheet Regarding the SSCI Study on the Former Detention and Interrogation Program.” This revealed that “the EIT program did produce valuable and unique intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists and save lives.” In direct violation of the United Nation Article II edict against the justification of torture, the CIA fact-sheet revealed that,
Ammar al-Baluchi, after undergoing EITs, was the first detainee to reveal that Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti served as a courier for messages from Osama Bin Laden after Bin Laden had departed Afghanistan. Before that, the CIA had only general information that Abu Ahmed had interacted with Bin Laden before the group’s retreat from Tora Bora. The knowledge learned from the use of the EIT program later lead to the death of al-Kuwaiti in May of 2011. This incident is one of several that helped to show the effectiveness of the program. Brian Innes, author of The History of Torture writes that “The inevitable outcome is that the trade of torturer has attracted only the most sadistic of human beings.” Yet the author fails to mention in certain situations, that the person being tortured isn’t innocent. Suppose that there are two individuals in an interrogation room-- one who works for the CIA, who is required to use the EIT program on the other who just happens to be a well-known terrorist. Which one is considered the sadist- the CIA agent who is trying to stop the planned attack, or the terrorist who planned the attack with the intent to kill hundreds of people? Despite the United Nations and Amnesty International, the safety of the United States and their citizens far outweighs the well-being of terrorists. The United States, in compliance with the CIA, is acting in self-defense by using torture. The use of the EIT program proved to be effective in the death of al-Kuwaiti. Torture will always be a topic for criticism, but it is sometimes a necessary evil.
any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” In simpler terms, if the United States had a terrorist who had admitted to knowing the location of a hypothetical bomb, but refused to divulge that information to the United States, putting thousands of lives at risk, we cannot and should not consider torture as a means to extract that information. In this situation, it can be construed that the U.N. values the safety of terrorists above the lives of the innocent. In retrospect, it makes one wonder if the U.N. isn’t just as guilty of killing innocent lives as the terrorists. It’s justified in this hypothetical situation because it’s a timed sensitive case where the interrogators do not have the time to try to intimate or make friends with the bad guys. French Nobel Laureate Albert Camus states in “The History of Torture” by Brian Innes, that “Torture has perhaps saved some, at the expense of honor, by uncovering 30 bombs, but at the same time it has created 50 new terrorists who, operating in some way and another place would cause the death of even more innocent people.” The question then is, if we decide not to use torture and the bombs the terrorists planted blow up, what’s to stop them from building more and harming even more people?
If torture only proves effective in some situations, should we stop torture all together and just let the bombs go off, because a few people deem it morally unacceptable? Despite Camus’ claims that torture would create fifty new terrorists, there is not sustainable information to back his claims up. The supposed risk of torture is not a great enough reason to stop altogether. If Camus prefers not to torture a known terrorist who is planning to harm people, then by all means he should not have to do that, but then those at risk of the hypothetical bomb would only have Camus to blame. In the United States, people in life-threatening situations have the right to self-defense. When it comes to torturing terrorists, one can argue that the United States is acting in self-defense. Amnesty International, which is a non-profit organization that fights for human rights, often argues that torture is cruel and inhuman. It can also be argued that it is cruel and inhuman to put thousands of innocent lives at risk for the well-being of a terrorist, who is maliciously withholding
information. In hostage situations if a police officer has a clear shot of the bad guy, it is not only acceptable, but encouraged to shoot them. Why is it okay to kill the hostage taker but not the terrorist who plans on killing many? In a hostage situation, the only difference between the hostage taker and the terrorist is that the latter gets to live. As Mirko Bagaric states perfectly in his article, A Case for Torture “Lost lives hurt a lot more then bent principles.” The well-being of society should always be put above those who wish to cause harm. The United States relies heavily on the Central Intelligence Agency, better known as the
CIA, to analyze and evaluate foreign intelligence. To thwart suspected terrorists and extract information, the CIA devised a program called EIT, which stands for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. In an article by Kevin Drum, he quotes CIA veteran Jose Rodriquez’s explanation of the program: Detainees were given the opportunity to cooperate. If they resisted and were believed to hold critical information, they might receive — with Washington’s approval — some of the enhanced techniques, such as being grabbed by the collar, deprived of sleep or, in rare cases, waterboarding- which gives the sensation of drowning. When the detainee became compliant, the techniques stopped — forever. In 2014, the CIA gave a press release entitled “CIA Fact Sheet Regarding the SSCI Study on the Former Detention and Interrogation Program.” This revealed that “the EIT program did produce valuable and unique intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists and save lives.” In direct violation of the United Nation Article II edict against the justification of torture, the CIA fact-sheet revealed that,
Ammar al-Baluchi, after undergoing EITs, was the first detainee to reveal that Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti served as a courier for messages from Osama Bin Laden after Bin Laden had departed Afghanistan. Before that, the CIA had only general information that Abu Ahmed had interacted with Bin Laden before the group’s retreat from Tora Bora. The knowledge learned from the use of the EIT program later lead to the death of al-Kuwaiti in May of 2011. This incident is one of several that helped to show the effectiveness of the program. Brian Innes, author of The History of Torture writes that “The inevitable outcome is that the trade of torturer has attracted only the most sadistic of human beings.” Yet the author fails to mention in certain situations, that the person being tortured isn’t innocent. Suppose that there are two individuals in an interrogation room-- one who works for the CIA, who is required to use the EIT program on the other who just happens to be a well-known terrorist. Which one is considered the sadist- the CIA agent who is trying to stop the planned attack, or the terrorist who planned the attack with the intent to kill hundreds of people? Despite the United Nations and Amnesty International, the safety of the United States and their citizens far outweighs the well-being of terrorists. The United States, in compliance with the CIA, is acting in self-defense by using torture. The use of the EIT program proved to be effective in the death of al-Kuwaiti. Torture will always be a topic for criticism, but it is sometimes a necessary evil.