What Is Torture Ethical

Torture and Ethics
Karen D. Davis
University of Phoenix
Ethics of Justice and Security
530
Eddie Koen
October 24, 2010

Torture and Ethics

The purpose of this paper is to analyze whether torturing enemy combatants or high-value targets violates standards of morality in an American free society. Examine whether the act of torture violates basic human rights and if it could have global implications. Also it will discuss ethical theories that justify torture.

Torture used to be contrary to American values. Cruel and unusual punishments were forbid by Our Bill of Rights. Americans and our government have historically condemned states that (practice) torture; we have granted asylum or refuge to those who fear it” (Lucan,
1425). Throughout the history of the concept of torture stands unique issue in the annals of criminology and jurisprudence. It is among the oldest methods of severe punishment, a method of capital punishment, a captor’s use of force to obtain compliance, interrogating method used with suspects, and a method employed by sadistic people who derive pleasure from pain and agony of others. However, to civilized society, torture has always been an inhuman and savage act, and therefore its use has been always protested and vehemently condemned, up and until recently the emergence of the “War on terrorism “But after 9/11, the American public has been divided over the issue of the torture of prisoners of war or civilians suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. The torture debate intensified with the emergence of media exposes regarding the inhumane treatment of prisoners in US military jails such as Guantanamo (2002) and Abu Ghraib (2004). Indeed, is torture justifiable if it was committed by the country that prides itself as the world 's leader of democracy and human rights?

By Wiklepedia, definition the terms "terrorism" and carry strong negative connotations. These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, and unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population. Emerging of various terrorist groups with a variety of missions is becoming rampant. The well known tragic terrorist attack executed by Al-Qaeda which is still fresh in memories of the world, remembered for massive destruction and tragedy these attack cause death to hundreds of people, victims and AL-Qaeda terrorist.

The primary argument that may be presented against the use of torture is that of morality. Torture is evil. It is immoral. It goes against the basic and fundamental human rights of every individual as a person. No person can take another’s life into his own hands. Torture is a contemptible, reprehensible practice that should not be tolerated at any cost, because the existence of exceptions would bring about dire consequences. However, there are no absolutes, and there are always exceptions to any rule, whether justifiable or not. Morals and principles tend to change with the times, and societal position, namely war and or terrorism

Ontological position that torture is morally abhorrent, if it can be used to prevent untold numbers from dying in a terrorist attack, it becomes the lesser evil and thus morally defensible. Many accounts surrounding torture and governmental abuse of power refers to the disrespect and dishonor to individual’s rights and liberties, as acceptable, subjective arrest and detentions were implemented. Individuals are arrested by force even though without any evidences against them. Tortures and any other inhuman treatment like physically maltreating the prisoner for example not providing any food, suspects are beaten which may lead to too excessive force and extreme judicial action. Tortures are exercised to make sure that suspects would admit and confess for the violence.” Many exercised this torture since they can easily make suspects confess. Government has been implementing it and believes this is a great approach to solve crimes effortlessly. Other governments transport their prisoners in a secret detention place like in Guantanamo Bay, Bigram for US custodies”(International, 2006). These actions taken by the government in combating crime and violence is extremely harsh and merely signifies violation of human rights. All actions done by the government should always be fair.

Deontological perspective , share a commitment for the humanity of those subjected to torture Even though the government has expanded powers to pursue their fight against terrorism, some says that those civil liberties or the freedoms that totally protect every individual from the government should not be violated. Rights and liberties are for every human being no matter how dreadful or harmful he was.

Natural law theory eventually gave rise to a concept of "natural rights." John Locke argued that human beings in the state of nature are free and equal.
When they enter society they surrender only such rights as are necessary for their security and for the common good. Each individual retains fundamental prerogatives drawn from natural law relating to the integrity of person and property (natural rights).Every prisoner, May it be terrorist or not, do also has his rights and liberties like every normal citizens have. A prisoner has the right to be fair trial, not treated as animals, and also right to eat meals. They should not be punished in customs that not according to the law, as law is said to be the protector of our life and liberty. In this regard torture is regarded as the greatest violation of human dignity of the victim and greatest possible debasement of the perpetrator. From moral and philosophical point of view, therefore, torture is unconditionally
inadmissible.

Utilitarian supporters of torture have used this classic ticking bomb example with success, and with convincing rational and moral weight. But implied in such examples is the notion of guilt and culpability of the accused. In such cases, the accused is not a victim, but a criminal. In dealing with this example, the fact cannot be lost that it’s a very special circumstance and it gains a moral legitimacy only because the comparative stakes are much higher and arguably more disastrous than pain and trauma suffered by an individual person. Further such torture is not fit to be categorized in sadistic and willful, and sustained act of giving pain. Such torture techniques have the purpose of eliciting the information, and its victims own refusal or deliberate denial that leads to the situation of torture. Therefore, the power equation of victim and tormentor is not asymmetrical. The victim has the option of ending torture by revealing the information to interrogator.

The paper started with the notion that, like it or not, torture has been a part of the history of man.
And again, like it or not, it is still a part of history being made. The arguments for and against torture show, more than anything, that it is a phenomenon that should still be reckoned with today. Why? Because it still exists, and it is actually practiced. And turning a blind eye to it will not make it go away. Rather than deny its existence and shout empty invectives against its use, or put against it an absolute ban that cannot be as absolutely followed, its exercise, whenever permitted by foreign government policy or the exigencies of the situation, should be tightly circumscribed.

When torture is utilized in order to protect national security, it is not necessarily legal, but the acts of the torturers are given a color of legality, and their prosecution for whatever human rights violations they may commit is up to the government which allowed them to do so. Therefore, torture remains as something immoral, but not necessarily as something illegal. When this is done, the earlier definitions of torture under the Roman regime as an “edict” echo in contemporary times. If the government does not punish its use, it will go
unpunished.

There is no denying that torture is taboo, to say the least. But there are merits to its use that cannot be denied through resorting to motherhood statements of morality and right and wrong. The standards of morality in an American free society belong to the realm of abstracts and thought, while there might be nothing left to counter the concrete actions, in the here and now called terrorism.

References:

DOJ. (2006). Fact Sheet: Department of Justice Anti-Terrorism Efforts Since Sept. 11, 2001.

Herald, T. S. M. (2004). Standing up for liberties.

International, A. (2006). Pakistan Working to stop human rights violations in the "war on terror".

.