The Abolition Of Torture Analysis

This paper addresses one of the most abiding and heated controversies surrounding the topic of torture and morality. Put simply, this controversy concerns the issue of whether under extreme and exceptional circumstances, a government agency should be legally permitted to use torture as a means of punishment or extracting information. According to Oxford Dictionary, torture is defined as “The action of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something”. On one side of the controversy, a significant community of experts argue that a government should be able to use torture, but only under very particular and exceptional circumstances, such as a terrorist attack, when thousands of innocent lives
of could be at risk. On the other side of the argument, other experts believe that torture is a barbaric act that strips individuals of their basic human rights. Arguing that because of the vast amount of alternate interrogation techniques available for use, torture is not an ethical tool of punishment or a viable means extracting information. In this essay I will asses the opposing arguments of Charles Krauthammer, author of The Truth about Torture: It’s Time to be Honest About doing a Terrible Thing, and Andrew Sullivan author of The Abolition of Torture.
In his article, Krauthammer identifies the inherent wrongness of torture, but argues that under very limited circumstances, such as potential terrorist attacks, some forms of torture should be legally permissible. Sullivan disagrees. In my appraisal, for the reasons stated below, Krauthammer’s argument in defence of torture is overwhelmingly more plausible and persuasive than Sullivan’s efforts to demonstrate that the very idea of torture is in violation of basic human rights. I will begin by outlining the key points of Krauthammer’s argument. I will then outline Sullivan’s objection to Krauthammer’s argument. Finally, I will argue that Krauthammer seriously weakens Sullivan’s
argument. In his article, Charles Krauthammer argues for a concession to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which effectively forbids any and all forms of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment of those in the custody of the United States (1). However, later in his argument, Krauthammer asserts that in “two very circumscribed circumstances” torture should be permissible (3). The first being the ticking time bomb, and the second being the slower-fuse high-value terrorist. The ticking time bomb scenario presented in Krauthammer’s article refers to an ethics thought experiment used in the debate over whether torture could ever be justified. According to Krauthammer, the scenario is as follows: a) a terrorist cell has planted a nuclear weapon or something nearly as devastating in a major city; b) we have captured someone in this cell; c) we know for a fact that he knows where the bomb is (4). In reality, the likelihood of such a scenario is extraordinarily unlikely, as uncovering a terrorist plot and capturing an accomplice involved in the possible attack is an almost impossible task. Realizing in advance of the possible attack that the accomplice holds information about the whereabouts only adds to the complexity and unlikeliness of the situation (Krauthammer, 5). The main question that arises from the scenario is whether it is ethically acceptable to torture the suspected accomplice (or his family or loved ones) in order to uncover information about where the bomb is planted, thus potentially saving thousands of lives (Krauthammer,5). According to Krauthammer, using torture in this scenario could be warranted; sacrificing the temporary well- being of one individual or group of individuals who have the intent to commit a horrific crime in order to protect the lives of countless innocent citizens is absolutely justifiable. Later in his article, Krauthammer introduces his idea of the slower-fuse high-value terrorist. In his explanation, he touches upon the detainment and use of waterboarding (a torture technique) by U.S. government officials on the al Qaeda’s Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. According to Krauthammer, Mohammed held knowledge about al Qaeda, including “plans, identities, contacts, materials, cell locations, safe houses, cased targets, etc.” (Krauthammer, 5). Essentially, the extent of information that Mohammed knew in regards to al Qaeda would allow the American government to terminate the organization altogether. However, in order to force Mohammed to confess this information, the U.S government officials would have to resort to torture (Krauthammer,5). Krauthammer states that unlike many other experts who were outraged by the use of such an extreme form of torture being used on Mohammed, he supported the decision.
Claiming that “[i]t would be a gross dereliction of duty for any government not to keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed isolated, disoriented, alone, despairing, . . . in order to find out what he knew about plans for future mass murder” (6). In concluding this thought, Krauthammer argues that the only time aggressive forms of interrogation techniques such as torture should be allowed are in the case of Mohammed and the al Qaeda, or in similar situations that include a terrorist who may hold vitally valuable information. In his article entitled The Abolition of Torture, Sullivan responds to Krauthammer’s endorsement of torture “under strictly curtailed conditions” (1). Sullivan objects to this proposed allowance of torture under certain circumstances as “an abandonment and violation of America’s constitutional principles that uphold the country as a defender of human rights” (3), and argues in favour of the unconditional ban of torture, referring to it as "a terrible and monstrous
thing”(5). Sullivan recognizes the “extraordinarily remote” possibility of a circumstance that might permit torture, and proposes to protect its complete illegality in such “circumstantial” situations to prevent further expansion of the use of torture (4). Sullivan argues that the use of legally permissible torture in “extreme” circumstances is subjective, and is therefore left to the individual committing the torture to interpret, leading to its potential misuse. Sullivan argues his viewpoint on torture as the “the polar opposite of freedom” (1). Referring to torture as “the banishment of all freedom from a human body and soul, insofar as that is possible”(4). He argues that every human being “inhabits a body, has a mind, and soul”, as well as reflexes that are “designed in part to protect those bodies: to resist or flinch from pain, to protect the psyche from disintegration, and to maintain a sense of selfhood that is the basis for the concept of personal liberty” (5). He furthers his argument by stating that torture “uses these involuntary, self-protective, self-defining resources of human beings against the integrity of the human being himself” (3). Sullivan states that the “infliction of physical pain on a person with no means of defending himself is designed to render that person completely subservient to his torturers” (2). Sullivan furthers his argument by stating that that very backbone of torture is designed to “extirpate his [victim] autonomy as a human being, to render his control as an individual beyond his own reach”(3). This act takes control away from the individual and places it in the hands of those committing the torture. In the conclusion of his argument, Sullivan states that “something broken can be put back together, but it will never regain the status go being unbroken, or having integrity” (2). In saying this, Sullivan contradicts the beliefs of many other experts who believe that torture causes only temporary harm to its victims. According to Sullivan, the physical and mental harm caused by being tortured can reside with the victim long after they are released. Sullivan furthers this point by stating that: “Torture uses a person's body to remove from his own control his conscience, his thoughts, his faith, his selfhood” (2). After carefully considering both Krauthammer and Sullivan’s arguments, I have come to the decision that Krauthammer’s argument in defence of using torture under very exceptional circumstances overwhelms Sullivan’s efforts to demonstrate that the use of torture violates the basic human rights that the Unites States of America endorses and upholds in its Constitution. Consistent with Krauthammer’s argument, I recognize that without the right circumstance, torture can be seen as a brutal and potentially futile act, with no guarantee that the right information will be obtained from its use. However, I believe that in an instance of a possible terrorist threat, where countless lives of innocent citizens could be at stake, torture could be admissible. Like Krauthammer, I believe that if authorities were aware of a possible terrorist attack and did not use their powers to halt or prevent it, the their actions are almost comparable to the terrorist(s). Contrary to Sullivan’s and similar to Krauthammer, I believe that the use of torture does not violate basic human rights because as soon as a person involves themselves in a situation of terrorism, in doing so, they sacrifice their basic human rights. In conclusion, I believe that in describing the use of torture as an abandonment and violation of America’s constitutional principles that uphold the country as a defender of human rights, Sullivan recklessly discounts the particular instances where torture could possibly be advantageous to a society by protecting the well-being of countless innocent individuals whose well-being is under possibly threat of a terrorist attack.