TORTURE IS FORBIDDEN FROM THIS DAY - JUST OBEY - OR FEEL THE WRATH AND ANGER OF CANUTE
In a recent speech to the Harvard community, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, discussed both the ethical and practical implications of torture. His point was simple: not only is torture inherently wrong, but it also has the opposite effect than is intended.
Functional arguments regarding torture have typically taken a back seat to moral and ethical discussions. And when the practicality of torture is discussed it is often with regard to torture in general rather than specific situations. Torture doesn’t work, its critics say, because the information acquired through torture is often times false. Victims will simply admit to whatever their torturers want in order to stop the pain, and thus the information culled from such practices is never truly verifiable.
However, there has been little analysis of how torture affects dynamics between Arabs and Americans in the Middle East and what its larger implications are for the War on Terror. Some of the strongest proponents of the practice defend it on the grounds of the “ticking time bomb” scenario. Torture, they say, should not be a widespread practice but should be used in situations when it can save a large of number of lives that are immediately at risk (a ticking bomb, for example). This argument is particularly applicable to the case of terrorism, since stopping an imminent terrorist attack is a perfect example of a situation dire enough to warrant the use of torture. Torture, then, by this argument will serve to curb terrorism and will thwart future terrorist attacks.
The flaws with this line of reasoning are numerous. Without going into too much depth, these arguments fail to clearly specify what exactly constitutes a “ticking time bomb” situation. What if the attack is likely to occur tomorrow? What about next year? What if the prisoner doesn’t know anything directly about the imminent threat but knows the whereabouts of someone who does? What if he simply knows the cousin of the friend of the neighbor who might have some information about an upcoming attack? Clearly the dilemma of the slippery slope is a primary one in this model.
Yet the more profound flaw with this justification is that it fails to account for the effects of torture on the opinions and mindsets of Arab citizens. The discovery of the United States’ use of torture in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib provoked something of a public outcry among many Arab citizens. The perceived hypocrisy and racism of such practices increased the already existing hostility between American forces and Arab locals. Such hostility is much more likely to foster further terrorism than torturing is likely to thwart future attacks. Intelligence regarding terrorist plans is rarely acquired from forced confession but more often from anonymous tips or willing admissions given in a spirit of good faith. But the use of torture completely undermines the development of any sort of positive relationship between Americans and Arabs and in this way decreases the likelihood that such willing admission will occur. In addition, heightened hostility and increased tensions will induce more Arabs to resort to terrorism or guerilla warfare as an outlet for their anger and frustration. Such a response is quite contrary to what we ought to be working toward in the region and, as such, we ought to completely relinquish the use of torture against Arabs, whether they be terrorists or not.
http://hir.harvard.edu/blog/?p=33
Posts
