Torture-iffic

In the modern United States, a debate about the use of torture of terror suspects is raging. For the war on terror is as much a war about information as it is about bullets and bombs, and at times the military and the government will go into murky waters in an attempt to attain the information they need. Some anti-torture advocates claim that in the use of torture, the U.S. loses its moral high ground above the terrorists they are fighting. While advocates for the use of torture against terrorists claim that using torture may save civilian and military lives, both American or foreign, and that this information should be attained at any cost (besides what is wrong with causing pain to a terrorist and murderer, right?). However, as in most debates, neither side may be completely right. The anti-torture side in the U.S. government contains flaws in their argument, and at times may sound more like flower picking hippies than people running a country at war. While the pro-torture side at times sound like medieval inquisitors on the hunt for revenge rather than information. In truth, torture may not be the path the United States military wants to take in its fight against Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic organization such as Hamas, however at times the anti-torture argument tends to delve into unrealistic territory.
A valid argument may be seen coming from the pro-torture groups in America today. Once one sees the true point behind the pro-torture debate, some sense may appear. In reality, torturing and water-boarding are not, and should not be about who it is being done to, but what it is that person knows. If the United States government knew that they had a man in custody, who knew about a plan to set off a dirty bomb in Los Angeles, then would it seem terribly unreasonable to induce the feeling of drowning on the man in an attempt to make him talk? If they knew for certain that they had a man in custody who knew where a child-prostitution ring was being held, then would it seem completely unreasonable to shine bright lights on him and drip water on him to keep him from being able to sleep until he talks? Perhaps many people would say no, it is not unreasonable. According to the Associated Press, “In America 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost 9 of 10 in South Korea and just over half in Britain and France felt that way.” So it seems that in at least some of the nations in the “civilized” west agree that torture is justifiable in order to get certain types of information from certain types of people.
One issue that pro-torture Americans may find problematic may be that the use of torture against only certain persons may seem more un-American than the act of torture itself. To say that torture is ok for one person, and not for another may result in the notion that some peoples are unequal from others in their rights, which may be seen as running against the founding principles of the United States.
On the other side of the debate we find ourselves in a perhaps more bogged down environment of rhetoric and moralist appeals. The 39% of Americans who thought torture was not acceptable under any circumstance in the AP poll may argue that the use of torture makes the Americans lose their moral standing in the war, and that when Americans use torture against their enemies, it gives their enemies the right t use torture on American soldiers. However, the biggest problem with this argument is, that in recent conflicts, and certainly in the current conflict we are engaged with enemies that are torturing and ceremonially executing Western soldiers, journalists, and contractors with no regard as to whether or not Americans are torturing their people.
Perhaps in today’s war, it would be better for the anti-torture groups to take the stance that Henri Alleg, author “The Question”. Alleg was tortured horrifically by his own government during the French-Algerian war, at times he was attached to a magneto and electrocuted and water-boarded. Yet, Alleg never broke under the pressure from his torturers even under a truth serum. But perhaps what makes Alleg’s argument against torture so powerful is that it is not riddled with rhetoric of how it is immoral and wrong for his torturers to torture him. It is the fact that the only argument he uses against the torturers is “You have no right to employ these methods”. And this is the very point of Allegs book, torture isn’t a question of who it is done to or who does it, but torture is a question of is it worth it?
Torture may be comparable to the actions of the United States Government against the people of Japan in 1945, when the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands, but perhaps saving millions of American and Japanese lives by bringing a swift end to the war. The initial act of killing so many civilians may seem immoral, however when weighed against the lives it saved, does it seem unreasonable? So for many people, including the war time governments of the U.S. and Europe, the answer may not be of morality, but practicality. Does torture work? Certainly not always, as Alleg has proven, but if it does work just one time and five thousand, twenty thousand, a hundred thousand lives, then is it not justified? We may not know now, or ever if torture is truly effective. But if the governments of this world are going to use in hopes of protecting their soldiers and citizens, then it may be best to hope that it does.

Share this post on:

 •    •    •    •    •