Summary: Use Of Torture In Counterterrorism
Effectiveness of Torture in Counterterrorism
Robert Reitenauer
Pennsylvania State University
Abstract
The use of torture in the world is not a new idea. The use of torture in the world dates back to the 530 AD Roman Empire where Roman jurists viewed the virtues of torture as “the highest forms of truth (Ross, 2005).” The United States though has a long history of humane practices of prisoners captured during war. In the Revolutionary War, General George Washington ordered that his troops never torture British Red Coats, “[this] new country in the New World would distinguish itself by its humanity.” Even in the prosecution of Nazi German Soldiers post World War II, the U.S. argued for the rights of prisoners of war. The U.S. was entrusted …show more content…
after the ratification of the Geneva Convention to maintain custody of the original document within the safe of the State Department (The Center for Justice and Accountability, 2014). After the events of September 11, 2001 though U.S. policy began to change. The U.S. began to shift its policies against a new enemy in order to maintain freedom and safety. Throughout the following sections the use of torture will be examined starting with what torture actually is. Like terrorism, torture is a difficult term to define and the difficulties in the definition of torture will be examined. The second main idea tackled within the paper is whether the practice of torture is an effective practice. Does the practice of torture actually get results over other forms of interrogation? The third subject of the paper will be does the United States support the practice of torture. It is a right afforded to all American’s under the 8th Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
Effectiveness of Torture in Counterterrorism
The use of torture in the world is not a new idea. The use of torture in the world dates back to the 530 AD Roman Empire where Roman jurists viewed the virtues of torture as “the highest forms of truth (Ross, 2005).” The United States though has a long history of humane practices of prisoners captured during war. In the Revolutionary War, General George Washington ordered that his troops never torture British Red Coats, “[this] new country in the New World would distinguish itself by its humanity.” Even in the prosecution of Nazi German Soldiers post World War II, the U.S. argued for the rights of prisoners of war. The U.S. was entrusted after the ratification of the Geneva Convention to maintain custody of the original document within the safe of the State Department (The Center for Justice and Accountability, 2014). After the events of September 11, 2001 though U.S. policy began to change. The U.S. began to shift its policies against a new enemy in order to maintain freedom and safety.
Throughout the following sections the use of torture will be examined starting with what torture actually is. Like terrorism, torture is a difficult term to define and the difficulties in the definition of torture will be examined. The second main idea tackled within the paper is whether the practice of torture is an effective practice. Does the practice of torture actually get results over other forms of interrogation? The third subject of the paper will be does the United States support the practice of torture. It is a right afforded to all American’s under the 8th Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
What is Torture?
In the writing of David Sussman, Defining Torture, he notes that the long history of the practice of torture makes defining the term difficult. As defined by the United Nations on December 9, 1975 torture is defined as, any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (p. 225). Sussman notes in his work that the definition provided by the United Nations does not distinguish torture from other enhanced interrogation techniques. These techniques would not differentiate torture from interrogation techniques that would use coercion, manipulation, or intimidation. This has caused some legal gray area as seen in the Abu Ghraib prison incident were prisoners were humiliated but not tortured as Donald Rumsfeld stated. Detainees at Abu Ghraib were subject to physical, psychological, and sexual abuse. Rumsfeld argued that these abuses were not torture, but a distinction between the two practices has yet to be clearly identified (Sussman, 225). The British government used the practice of “interrogation in depth” against IRA sympathizers. These techniques, Sussman notes, involved the hooding of prisoners and keeping them in rooms that had loud repetitive noises. Prisoners would also be deprived of water, food, medical care, and prisoners were placed in what Sussman called “stress positions.” The definition of torture still is unclear (Sussman, 226).
Assistant Attorney General Jay ByBee stated that to constitute torture “physical pain must be inflicted on a captive of such intensity akin to what accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure.” Sussman in his article writes for torture to occur a victim must see themselves “at the mercy of their tormentors,” and “must be unable to shield themselves from any significant way” for abuse. Sussman notes the importance that the detainee has no control and that the “tormentor” as someone that can impose their will without challenge or claim from the detainee (p. 228).
Sussman’s article provides light for the difficulties that we face when defining such a complex term as torture. For the purpose of this paper, the definition of torture will be amended to include adaptions from Sussman to give a better workable definition of torture. Adding the word control to the beginning part of the definition of the U.N. definition should give us a better definition of torture.
Effectiveness of Torture As seen in the review of the Sussman article, defining torture can be difficult. As we move forward we look to examine whether the practice of torture is effective in counterterrorism. Christopher Michael Sullivan in his article, The (in)effectiveness of torture for combating insurgency, begins by noting that the use of torture in counterinsurgency was committed by all states from the years of 1981-2010. Sullivan notes that while the practice of torture is widely used for its believed effectiveness there is a scarcity of evidence to support this claim (Sullivan, 2014, p. 388). Sullivan examines the U.N. definition of torture and finds that there are three possible reasons why a state would engage in torture. The first reason is to extract information followed by using torture to punish the detainee. The final reason why torture is used is to instill a terror in the surrounding population. Sullivan states that under the reasons torture is “a tool for managing dissent,” and that it is effective when “it leads to subsequent reductions in insurgent perpetrated killings of counterinsurgents or civilians.” Sullivan believes that if torture does not reduce the number of killings perpetrated by insurgents then the practice has little regard in terms of effectiveness (Sullivan, 2014, p. 389). Sullivan conducting a scientific study on the effectiveness of torture hypothesizes two things, first that “torture will be associated with decreases in killings perpetrated by insurgents (Sullivan, p. 390).” Secondly he hypothesizes that “torture will be associated with increases in killings perpetrated by counterinsurgents (Sullivan, p. 392).” In the results of his study, Sullivan finds that serious doubt on the effectiveness of torture in reducing insurgent killings over a two month period. Under a six month period “the evidence again refutes the contention that torture is associated with reductions in killings perpetrated by insurgents. In the testing of the second hypothesis, Sullivan finds that “torture is again associated with increases in killings perpetrated by counterinsurgents in the municipalities experiencing torture.” Sullivan finds that the practice of torture as an effective tool in counterinsurgency has little support statically (Sullivan, p. 399). Like Sullivan, Emilie Hafner-Burton and Jacob Shapiro find similar things as it relates to terrorism and torture. In their article, Tortured Relations: Human Rights Abuses and Counterterrorism Cooperation, notes two main points. The first point is that terrorism creates strong pressures to restrict human rights to combat it. The second main point is that these practices are often immoral and illegal while also being counterproductive to the fight. The Hafner-Burton and Shapiro article points to the British government arresting suspected Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorists and placing them in indefinite detention to support their first point. The practice by the British actually lead to more aggressive terrorist activities by the IRA (Hafner-Burton & Shapiro, 2010, p. 415). To support their second point, Hafner-Burton and Shapiro note that the U.S. crackdowns on human rights often give credence to the grievances and motivations. While writing in their article, the authors point out “restrictions on human rights have been counterproductive to international counterterrorism cooperation, and in others, they have had little effect,” but “To know for sure, scholars need to breakdown current knowledge on cooperation, looking for evidence and theorizing about the effects on cooperation with other democracies, with autocracies, and between U.S. intelligence agencies.” The Shapiro and Hafner-Burton article notes that the subject of the effectiveness of torture in counterterrorism is a topic that needs far more research to determine effectiveness (Hafner-Burton & Shapiro, 2010, p. 419). The Hafner-Burton and Shapiro article and Sullivan article both find that torture is counterproductive in the fight against terrorism. An article by Mialon, Mialon, and Stinchcombe expands further on the offsetting effects in counterterrorism. In reaction to the events of September 11th, 2001 Assistant Attorney General John Yoo recommended that the U.S. withdraw from the Geneva Conventions sanctions on torture. Yoo statements are in response to gaining public support to combat terrorism in the scenario of the ticking bomb. In the Mialon, Mialon, and Stinchcombe article they look to answer whether this is a “socially efficient policy” using cost-benefit analysis. The writers note that if an agency allows torture when the detainee is found to be strongly guilty then torture can be an incentive to counterterrorism. The only issue as the writer’s note is that “agencies do not obey directives, torture happens even though it is illegal, and an enforced system of judicial warrants could bring this under control, resulting in less torture of the innocent.” As seen with many things government abuses can easily get out of control (Mialon, Mialon, & Stinchcombe, 2012). In the Mialon, Mialon, and Stinchcombe article, they look at the cost-benefit analysis of whether allowing torture is a “socially efficient policy.” In their findings they write that “allowing the agency to use torture in strong-evidence cases may reduce its efforts to stop terrorism by means other than torture.” Torture, as the authors continue in their article, may result in a reduction of security in a nation. Mialon, Mialon, and Stinchcombe also note the most important thing of the study, that allowing torture in cases where strong-evidence would support it could reduce the effectiveness on an agencies non-torture efforts (Mialon, Mialon, & Stinchcombe, 2012). The previous three articles note that torture in regards to counterterrorism is not an effective practice. Torture as noted in the previous articles can undermine non-torture efforts and have unintended reactions. In Richard Goldstone’s writing Combating Terrorism: Zero Tolerance for Torture, he looks at how the world has responded to terrorism. President Barak of Israel has noted:
While terrorism poses difficult questions for every country, it poses especially challenging questions for democratic countries, because not every effective means is a legal means. I discussed this is one case, in which our Court held that violent interrogation of a suspected terrorist is not lawful, even if doing so may save a human life by preventing impending terrorist acts. Goldstone also notes in his article several other key things. Law enforcement finds the use of torture does not produce reliable information. Goldstone quotes an Irish judge, Kingsmill-Moore J, who states “To countenance the use of evidence extracted or discovered by gross personal violence would in my opinion, involve the State in moral defilement (Goldstone, 2006).” Goldstone’s work ties in well with the book written by Alexander and Bruning, How to break a terrorist: The U.S. interrogators who used brains, not brutality, to take down the deadliest man in Iraq. Alexander, a fourteen year U.S.
Air Force veteran, was picked to lead interrogation teams after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Before Alexander began interrogations in Iraq, interrogators used force to gain insight and information from detainees in Iraq. These approaches were unsuccessful and yielded little usable information. Alexander in his book notes how he used a conversational approach with five captured al-Qaeda members. Alexander’s approach utilized negotiation and psychological tools on the detainees to obtain information on the whereabouts of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Alexander in his book notes that using torture often would fortify the beliefs that al-Qaeda members had about Americans. Alexander in his approach was able to obtain the whereabouts of Al Zarqawi that lead to his death via an U.S. Air Force targeted strike. Alexander proves that information can be obtained without torture and that the information is valuable (Alexander & Bruning, …show more content…
2008).
Why Do We Support the Idea of Torture? As seen in the previous section of this paper, torture can have counterproductive effects in combatting terrorism, but why do we as Americans support the idea of torture? In their study, The fine line between interrogation and retribution, Kevin Carlsmith and Avani Sood find people endorse harsh interrogation techniques mostly because of retributive motives. Carlsmith and Sood write that the public supports torture of the “guilty target” because terrorists “would be unlikely to give up useful knowledge without coercive techniques (Carlsmith & Sood, 2009).” As seen in the Alexander book this is not true. Torturing terrorist not only solidifies their beliefs against Americans.
In similar research Jeremy Mayer and David Armor examine public opinion on the issue of torture or enhanced interrogation. Mayer and Armor through a survey study in The fine line between interrogation and retribution find that Americans do not appear to be tolerant of torture and that the public is evenly divided on the issue of torture. In their study they found that the American public would support “hooding” and sleep deprivation. Under our definition discussed in the first section of this paper these techniques would be considered tortured (Mayer & Armor, 2012). American opinion on torture seems to be influenced on preventing the next terrorist attack in America. Americans feel that using torture may be a way of getting information of a “ticking bomb” to prevent the next attack, but this idea seems to be untrue. Torture as the research shows will mostly embolden terrorist and legitimize their claims against America.
Conclusion.
The purpose of the paper was to determine whether or not the practice of torture is an effective counterterrorism tragedy. The definition of torture started off the paper and issues with the definition. Sussman noted that the U.N. definition leaves out forms of punishment that included coercion, manipulation, and/or intimidation. The second part of the paper concentrated on the central question of the paper, is torture effective in counterterrorism? The four articles and the book referenced notes that the practice of torture is not effective in counterterrorism, but as seen in the final section, the American public still supports the practice due to the perceived retribution attributes. Overall, it has been found that torture is not an effective practice in counterterrorism. I do believe while research does show that it is not effective the practice will continued to be utilized. The images of a Jack Bauer like character from the TV show 24, continue to shape many of the ideas of the American public. The idea of an American interrogator doing whatever he can to get information from a suspect is great TV but not realistic effective as shown via research. It seems that the American public has the idea that characters like Jack Bauer or Harry Callahan are realistic, people who would do anything stop crime and terror. I found that this quote, from Alexander’s book is relative to the topic and the dangers of torture in counterterrorism. “Torture and abuse
cost American lives...I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq...How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don 't count American soldiers as Americans (Alexander & Bruning, 2008)."
References
Alexander, M., & Bruning, J. R. (2008). How to break a terrorist: The U.S. interrogators who used brains, not brutality, to take down the deadliest man in Iraq. New York: Free Press.
Carlsmith, K. M., & Sood, A. M. (2009). The fine line between interrogation and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.025
The Center for Justice and Accountability. (2014). Background on the United States. Retrieved from http://cja.org/article.php?list=type&type=409
Goldstone, R. (2006). Combating terrorism: zero tolerance for torture. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 37(2/3), 343-348.
Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Shapiro, J. N. (2010). Tortured relations: human rights abuses and counterterrorism cooperation. Ps-political Science & Politics. 415-419. doi:10.1017/S104909651000065X
Mayer, J. D., & Armor, D. J. (2012). Support for torture over time: interrogating the American public about coercive tactics. The Social Science Journal, 49, 439-446.
Mialon, H. M., Mialon, S. H., & Stinchcombe, M. B. (2012). Torture in counterterrorism: agency incentives and slippery slopes. Journal of Public Economics, 33-41. doi:10.1016
Ross, J. (2005). A history of torture. In Torture: a human rights perspective (p. 4).
Sullivan, C. M. (2014). The (in)effectiveness of torture. Journal of Peace Research,51(3), 388-404. doi:10.1177/0022343313520023
Robert Reitenauer
Pennsylvania State University
Abstract
The use of torture in the world is not a new idea. The use of torture in the world dates back to the 530 AD Roman Empire where Roman jurists viewed the virtues of torture as “the highest forms of truth (Ross, 2005).” The United States though has a long history of humane practices of prisoners captured during war. In the Revolutionary War, General George Washington ordered that his troops never torture British Red Coats, “[this] new country in the New World would distinguish itself by its humanity.” Even in the prosecution of Nazi German Soldiers post World War II, the U.S. argued for the rights of prisoners of war. The U.S. was entrusted …show more content…
after the ratification of the Geneva Convention to maintain custody of the original document within the safe of the State Department (The Center for Justice and Accountability, 2014). After the events of September 11, 2001 though U.S. policy began to change. The U.S. began to shift its policies against a new enemy in order to maintain freedom and safety. Throughout the following sections the use of torture will be examined starting with what torture actually is. Like terrorism, torture is a difficult term to define and the difficulties in the definition of torture will be examined. The second main idea tackled within the paper is whether the practice of torture is an effective practice. Does the practice of torture actually get results over other forms of interrogation? The third subject of the paper will be does the United States support the practice of torture. It is a right afforded to all American’s under the 8th Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
Effectiveness of Torture in Counterterrorism
The use of torture in the world is not a new idea. The use of torture in the world dates back to the 530 AD Roman Empire where Roman jurists viewed the virtues of torture as “the highest forms of truth (Ross, 2005).” The United States though has a long history of humane practices of prisoners captured during war. In the Revolutionary War, General George Washington ordered that his troops never torture British Red Coats, “[this] new country in the New World would distinguish itself by its humanity.” Even in the prosecution of Nazi German Soldiers post World War II, the U.S. argued for the rights of prisoners of war. The U.S. was entrusted after the ratification of the Geneva Convention to maintain custody of the original document within the safe of the State Department (The Center for Justice and Accountability, 2014). After the events of September 11, 2001 though U.S. policy began to change. The U.S. began to shift its policies against a new enemy in order to maintain freedom and safety.
Throughout the following sections the use of torture will be examined starting with what torture actually is. Like terrorism, torture is a difficult term to define and the difficulties in the definition of torture will be examined. The second main idea tackled within the paper is whether the practice of torture is an effective practice. Does the practice of torture actually get results over other forms of interrogation? The third subject of the paper will be does the United States support the practice of torture. It is a right afforded to all American’s under the 8th Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
What is Torture?
In the writing of David Sussman, Defining Torture, he notes that the long history of the practice of torture makes defining the term difficult. As defined by the United Nations on December 9, 1975 torture is defined as, any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (p. 225). Sussman notes in his work that the definition provided by the United Nations does not distinguish torture from other enhanced interrogation techniques. These techniques would not differentiate torture from interrogation techniques that would use coercion, manipulation, or intimidation. This has caused some legal gray area as seen in the Abu Ghraib prison incident were prisoners were humiliated but not tortured as Donald Rumsfeld stated. Detainees at Abu Ghraib were subject to physical, psychological, and sexual abuse. Rumsfeld argued that these abuses were not torture, but a distinction between the two practices has yet to be clearly identified (Sussman, 225). The British government used the practice of “interrogation in depth” against IRA sympathizers. These techniques, Sussman notes, involved the hooding of prisoners and keeping them in rooms that had loud repetitive noises. Prisoners would also be deprived of water, food, medical care, and prisoners were placed in what Sussman called “stress positions.” The definition of torture still is unclear (Sussman, 226).
Assistant Attorney General Jay ByBee stated that to constitute torture “physical pain must be inflicted on a captive of such intensity akin to what accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure.” Sussman in his article writes for torture to occur a victim must see themselves “at the mercy of their tormentors,” and “must be unable to shield themselves from any significant way” for abuse. Sussman notes the importance that the detainee has no control and that the “tormentor” as someone that can impose their will without challenge or claim from the detainee (p. 228).
Sussman’s article provides light for the difficulties that we face when defining such a complex term as torture. For the purpose of this paper, the definition of torture will be amended to include adaptions from Sussman to give a better workable definition of torture. Adding the word control to the beginning part of the definition of the U.N. definition should give us a better definition of torture.
Effectiveness of Torture As seen in the review of the Sussman article, defining torture can be difficult. As we move forward we look to examine whether the practice of torture is effective in counterterrorism. Christopher Michael Sullivan in his article, The (in)effectiveness of torture for combating insurgency, begins by noting that the use of torture in counterinsurgency was committed by all states from the years of 1981-2010. Sullivan notes that while the practice of torture is widely used for its believed effectiveness there is a scarcity of evidence to support this claim (Sullivan, 2014, p. 388). Sullivan examines the U.N. definition of torture and finds that there are three possible reasons why a state would engage in torture. The first reason is to extract information followed by using torture to punish the detainee. The final reason why torture is used is to instill a terror in the surrounding population. Sullivan states that under the reasons torture is “a tool for managing dissent,” and that it is effective when “it leads to subsequent reductions in insurgent perpetrated killings of counterinsurgents or civilians.” Sullivan believes that if torture does not reduce the number of killings perpetrated by insurgents then the practice has little regard in terms of effectiveness (Sullivan, 2014, p. 389). Sullivan conducting a scientific study on the effectiveness of torture hypothesizes two things, first that “torture will be associated with decreases in killings perpetrated by insurgents (Sullivan, p. 390).” Secondly he hypothesizes that “torture will be associated with increases in killings perpetrated by counterinsurgents (Sullivan, p. 392).” In the results of his study, Sullivan finds that serious doubt on the effectiveness of torture in reducing insurgent killings over a two month period. Under a six month period “the evidence again refutes the contention that torture is associated with reductions in killings perpetrated by insurgents. In the testing of the second hypothesis, Sullivan finds that “torture is again associated with increases in killings perpetrated by counterinsurgents in the municipalities experiencing torture.” Sullivan finds that the practice of torture as an effective tool in counterinsurgency has little support statically (Sullivan, p. 399). Like Sullivan, Emilie Hafner-Burton and Jacob Shapiro find similar things as it relates to terrorism and torture. In their article, Tortured Relations: Human Rights Abuses and Counterterrorism Cooperation, notes two main points. The first point is that terrorism creates strong pressures to restrict human rights to combat it. The second main point is that these practices are often immoral and illegal while also being counterproductive to the fight. The Hafner-Burton and Shapiro article points to the British government arresting suspected Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorists and placing them in indefinite detention to support their first point. The practice by the British actually lead to more aggressive terrorist activities by the IRA (Hafner-Burton & Shapiro, 2010, p. 415). To support their second point, Hafner-Burton and Shapiro note that the U.S. crackdowns on human rights often give credence to the grievances and motivations. While writing in their article, the authors point out “restrictions on human rights have been counterproductive to international counterterrorism cooperation, and in others, they have had little effect,” but “To know for sure, scholars need to breakdown current knowledge on cooperation, looking for evidence and theorizing about the effects on cooperation with other democracies, with autocracies, and between U.S. intelligence agencies.” The Shapiro and Hafner-Burton article notes that the subject of the effectiveness of torture in counterterrorism is a topic that needs far more research to determine effectiveness (Hafner-Burton & Shapiro, 2010, p. 419). The Hafner-Burton and Shapiro article and Sullivan article both find that torture is counterproductive in the fight against terrorism. An article by Mialon, Mialon, and Stinchcombe expands further on the offsetting effects in counterterrorism. In reaction to the events of September 11th, 2001 Assistant Attorney General John Yoo recommended that the U.S. withdraw from the Geneva Conventions sanctions on torture. Yoo statements are in response to gaining public support to combat terrorism in the scenario of the ticking bomb. In the Mialon, Mialon, and Stinchcombe article they look to answer whether this is a “socially efficient policy” using cost-benefit analysis. The writers note that if an agency allows torture when the detainee is found to be strongly guilty then torture can be an incentive to counterterrorism. The only issue as the writer’s note is that “agencies do not obey directives, torture happens even though it is illegal, and an enforced system of judicial warrants could bring this under control, resulting in less torture of the innocent.” As seen with many things government abuses can easily get out of control (Mialon, Mialon, & Stinchcombe, 2012). In the Mialon, Mialon, and Stinchcombe article, they look at the cost-benefit analysis of whether allowing torture is a “socially efficient policy.” In their findings they write that “allowing the agency to use torture in strong-evidence cases may reduce its efforts to stop terrorism by means other than torture.” Torture, as the authors continue in their article, may result in a reduction of security in a nation. Mialon, Mialon, and Stinchcombe also note the most important thing of the study, that allowing torture in cases where strong-evidence would support it could reduce the effectiveness on an agencies non-torture efforts (Mialon, Mialon, & Stinchcombe, 2012). The previous three articles note that torture in regards to counterterrorism is not an effective practice. Torture as noted in the previous articles can undermine non-torture efforts and have unintended reactions. In Richard Goldstone’s writing Combating Terrorism: Zero Tolerance for Torture, he looks at how the world has responded to terrorism. President Barak of Israel has noted:
While terrorism poses difficult questions for every country, it poses especially challenging questions for democratic countries, because not every effective means is a legal means. I discussed this is one case, in which our Court held that violent interrogation of a suspected terrorist is not lawful, even if doing so may save a human life by preventing impending terrorist acts. Goldstone also notes in his article several other key things. Law enforcement finds the use of torture does not produce reliable information. Goldstone quotes an Irish judge, Kingsmill-Moore J, who states “To countenance the use of evidence extracted or discovered by gross personal violence would in my opinion, involve the State in moral defilement (Goldstone, 2006).” Goldstone’s work ties in well with the book written by Alexander and Bruning, How to break a terrorist: The U.S. interrogators who used brains, not brutality, to take down the deadliest man in Iraq. Alexander, a fourteen year U.S.
Air Force veteran, was picked to lead interrogation teams after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Before Alexander began interrogations in Iraq, interrogators used force to gain insight and information from detainees in Iraq. These approaches were unsuccessful and yielded little usable information. Alexander in his book notes how he used a conversational approach with five captured al-Qaeda members. Alexander’s approach utilized negotiation and psychological tools on the detainees to obtain information on the whereabouts of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Alexander in his book notes that using torture often would fortify the beliefs that al-Qaeda members had about Americans. Alexander in his approach was able to obtain the whereabouts of Al Zarqawi that lead to his death via an U.S. Air Force targeted strike. Alexander proves that information can be obtained without torture and that the information is valuable (Alexander & Bruning, …show more content…
2008).
Why Do We Support the Idea of Torture? As seen in the previous section of this paper, torture can have counterproductive effects in combatting terrorism, but why do we as Americans support the idea of torture? In their study, The fine line between interrogation and retribution, Kevin Carlsmith and Avani Sood find people endorse harsh interrogation techniques mostly because of retributive motives. Carlsmith and Sood write that the public supports torture of the “guilty target” because terrorists “would be unlikely to give up useful knowledge without coercive techniques (Carlsmith & Sood, 2009).” As seen in the Alexander book this is not true. Torturing terrorist not only solidifies their beliefs against Americans.
In similar research Jeremy Mayer and David Armor examine public opinion on the issue of torture or enhanced interrogation. Mayer and Armor through a survey study in The fine line between interrogation and retribution find that Americans do not appear to be tolerant of torture and that the public is evenly divided on the issue of torture. In their study they found that the American public would support “hooding” and sleep deprivation. Under our definition discussed in the first section of this paper these techniques would be considered tortured (Mayer & Armor, 2012). American opinion on torture seems to be influenced on preventing the next terrorist attack in America. Americans feel that using torture may be a way of getting information of a “ticking bomb” to prevent the next attack, but this idea seems to be untrue. Torture as the research shows will mostly embolden terrorist and legitimize their claims against America.
Conclusion.
The purpose of the paper was to determine whether or not the practice of torture is an effective counterterrorism tragedy. The definition of torture started off the paper and issues with the definition. Sussman noted that the U.N. definition leaves out forms of punishment that included coercion, manipulation, and/or intimidation. The second part of the paper concentrated on the central question of the paper, is torture effective in counterterrorism? The four articles and the book referenced notes that the practice of torture is not effective in counterterrorism, but as seen in the final section, the American public still supports the practice due to the perceived retribution attributes. Overall, it has been found that torture is not an effective practice in counterterrorism. I do believe while research does show that it is not effective the practice will continued to be utilized. The images of a Jack Bauer like character from the TV show 24, continue to shape many of the ideas of the American public. The idea of an American interrogator doing whatever he can to get information from a suspect is great TV but not realistic effective as shown via research. It seems that the American public has the idea that characters like Jack Bauer or Harry Callahan are realistic, people who would do anything stop crime and terror. I found that this quote, from Alexander’s book is relative to the topic and the dangers of torture in counterterrorism. “Torture and abuse
cost American lives...I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq...How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don 't count American soldiers as Americans (Alexander & Bruning, 2008)."
References
Alexander, M., & Bruning, J. R. (2008). How to break a terrorist: The U.S. interrogators who used brains, not brutality, to take down the deadliest man in Iraq. New York: Free Press.
Carlsmith, K. M., & Sood, A. M. (2009). The fine line between interrogation and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.025
The Center for Justice and Accountability. (2014). Background on the United States. Retrieved from http://cja.org/article.php?list=type&type=409
Goldstone, R. (2006). Combating terrorism: zero tolerance for torture. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 37(2/3), 343-348.
Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Shapiro, J. N. (2010). Tortured relations: human rights abuses and counterterrorism cooperation. Ps-political Science & Politics. 415-419. doi:10.1017/S104909651000065X
Mayer, J. D., & Armor, D. J. (2012). Support for torture over time: interrogating the American public about coercive tactics. The Social Science Journal, 49, 439-446.
Mialon, H. M., Mialon, S. H., & Stinchcombe, M. B. (2012). Torture in counterterrorism: agency incentives and slippery slopes. Journal of Public Economics, 33-41. doi:10.1016
Ross, J. (2005). A history of torture. In Torture: a human rights perspective (p. 4).
Sullivan, C. M. (2014). The (in)effectiveness of torture. Journal of Peace Research,51(3), 388-404. doi:10.1177/0022343313520023