Should Torture Be Allowed Amidst the War on Terrorism? Essay Example

One decade ago, the War on Terrorism was declared by former U.S. President George W. Bush, and a handful of freedoms that people have hitherto enjoyed and were rendered sacrosanct were reduced or violated in various ways. Human rights have been the most blatantly violated and the residue of this war on a concept. Human rights advocates have staged various protests against the interrogation techniques, which includes abuse and torture, utilized in order to extract confessions and information from prisoners that would help abate terrorist incidents around the globe. It is hard to discern whether or not torture will ever be justified, as it continues to be a politically divisive and controversial that remains in public discourses today amongst politicians and academics alike. Torture refers to an extreme form of violence perpetrated by humans that can have adverse psychological and physical ramifications for the victim, and it has persisted in world civilization for thousands of years. There is a large corpus of scholarly literature on the negative effects of torture and abuse for both the perpetrators and surviving victims. International laws prohibit torture and abuse, yet it remains a ubiquitous practice on suspected terrorists. The dependence on abuse for the extraction of critical information continues to be debated, which is why many people contend that it can never be justified because it is at the human level deviant, so it should be outlawed. While torture and abuse for the purpose of extracting information at a human level can never be justified, there are extreme cases in which abuse and torture are morally justified to mitigate future calamities. Nonetheless, torture is inhumane and cruel and must be used as minimally as possible so as not to create a slippery slope.

No consensus has been reached regarding a clear-cut definition of what constitutes the concept of torture, but it has nonetheless been looked down upon as intrinsically inhumane and immoral for thousands of years. For over two centuries, the United States has legally prohibited the use of torture, as the eighth Amendment of the  United States Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment. Moreover, the United Declaration of Human Rights, which was ratified in 1948, also outlaws torture, along with the 1975 United Nations Declaration against Torture and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment of Punishment that was adopted in 1987. At the United Nation against Torture, the delegates devised a exhaustive list of what acts are categorized as torture, which included intentional hard in addiction to coercion or discrimination of any kind both physical and emotional.

This definition makes it clear that torture and abuse transcend merely the physical, as torture can also be psychological or emotional and not involve fatalities. In addition, torture is framed as a type of political violence that is state-sanctioned if done under the auspices of the government or military. Finally, in order for a certain act to be considered torture, the suffering and pain inflicted on a victim must be severe, and it must be clearly differentiated from other types of inhumane or degrading treatment.

Using torture and abuse tactics even within the context of the War on Terror cannot be justified in the majority of cases. Indeed, all human beings possess the natural right to be treated with dignity and concern for their well-being. Torture is degrading and directly infracts this fundamental human right (Amnesty International). Some sociologists consider torture to be far more barbaric and vicious than other forms of violence and offensive treatment because of the present of self-betrayal, as the victims are to blame for their own suffering because they must choose whether they are willing to relinquish their values and principles or incur such unjust treatment. It is also morally bereft of perpetrators to purposely humiliate another human being vis-a-vis torture tactics and abuse. Detainees of the so-called War on Terror have recounted some of the heinous tactics they had to endure, according to Amnesty International in 2005: solitary confinement and isolation for a protracted period of time; sensory manipulation including exposure to loud music or extremely bright lights; sleep deprivation; sexual humiliation; mock executions of other inmates; the use of violent dogs; being forced to stand without moving for hours on end; severe beatings; exposure to extreme cold and heat and other types of environmental manipulation; prejudicial insults regard one’s religious or racial background, which former soldiers have described as “pride and ego down”; and prolonged handcuffing (Amnesty International).

While detainees who refused to cooperate became victims of such torture tactics, those who chose to cooperate were rewarded for betraying their nation or terrorist affiliation and were afforded some comforts in relation to the others. They forged friendships with interrogators and were even given monetary compensation for the information they shared. While victims of torture suffered enduring trauma in various arenas, it should also be noted that even the interrogators and perpetrators of the abuse suffered enduring emotional and psychological trauma. While the victim often suffers from acute and chronic pain for the rest of their lives, the interrogators have noted that they too suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder in the same way that executioners do in states that still practice the death penalty. Manifestations of PTSD include shame, humiliation, irritability, depression, insomnia, headaches, the inability to concentrate, nightmares, overt emotional instability, physical ailments including the heart, lungs, and stomach, amnesia, problems performing sexually, self-mutilation, social isolation, and enhanced suicidal ideation (Sussman 1). Finally, torture should not be morally justified because it causes a slippery slope and opens up a vacuum for other forms of cruelty and abuse to be viewed as acceptable. The Abu Ghraib Scandal in 2004 reinforces how justifying torture can open up a slippery slope, fallacious argument that nonetheless has real, material consequences.

During the bloody reign of Saddam Hussein in Iraq beginning during the 1980s, Abu Ghraib evolved into an internationally infamous prison characterized by rampant bloodshed, abuse, torture, and filthy living conditions that germinated due to overcrowding. It is located just west of Baghdad. Following the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Army Reserve General Janis Karpinski, an dexterous and experienced intelligence and operations officer, took charge of all military prisons in operation in Iraq, a service that she had never performed before despite having years of experience in the army during the Gulf War as well as in the Special Services (Hersch 45). Soon after accepting her role as the prison supervisor, General Karpinski was formally suspended when disturbing images of her and other American soldiers taunting Iraqi inmates surfaced and were disseminated on a global scale, pending an investigation of the U.S. military’s prison system.

At the beginning of 2003, a proliferation of reports emerged regarding the blatant abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners incarcerated at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. Abu Ghraib is an internationally notorious international prison dating back to the reign of Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. Such heinous acts of abuse and torture were perpetrated by members of the 372nd Military Police Company, a unit that was supervised by General Janis Karpinksi (Hersch 1). As such, the United States army spearheaded a criminal investigation at the outset of 2004, which produced some disturbing and graphic images showcasing the reckless abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners by personnel in the U.S. military. Such pictures catalyzed an international political and military scandal that soiled the public image and integrity of the United States military.  This scandal carried with it a litany of political and cultural implications and opened up a dialogue in American political circles and public discourses about whether or not abuse and torture is merited during the War on Terror and the globalization of terrorism. The political scandal that fomented as a result of the Abu Ghraib scandal because of the diffusion of anti-Arab sentiment germinated in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. The prison torture scandal became emblematic of hegemonic and salient American perceptions that rendered Arabs violent, anti-American, nefarious terrorists. Therefore, the mistreatment of Iraqi inmates typified the pejorative views and attitudes towards members of the Arab world, thereby perpetuating an ongoing cultural clash that undergirded such despicable and violent behaviors.

The American government contended that cases like Abu Ghraib took place outside of the confines of American law and foreign policy. Torture, according to the United States, is practical in the War on Terror, and national security officials steadfastly defend the use of abuse and violence against suspected terrorists they captured by framing it as necessary and just. As a result, torture and violent tactics is being used more frequently with impunity. As such, the United States bases its use of torture on the premise that “If you do not violate someone’s human rights some of the time, you probably are not doing your job.” The world profoundly changed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, so harsher, more punitive methods have been used to combat terrorism and prevent any future terrorist attacks as vital. American officials further promote the loosening of restrictions on torture along with other forms of cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners. Academics and members of the intelligentsia also support the American government’s position  on the use of torture and abuse, and politicians hope that the American people will support such tactics as well. The issue of water-boarding prisoners has emerged as a contentious issue that persists into the present day, and recent research attests to the reality that”the American Psychological Association secretly collaborated with the administration of President George W. Bush to bolster a legal and ethical justification for the torture of prisoners swept up in the post-Sept. 11 war on terror” (Risen.) Furthermore, there are various proposals that have backed the issuing of a torture warrant that could be administered by a judge and allow for interrogators to engage in abusive tactics and torture with impunity in international courts of law (Bellamy 509). Lifting the ban, however, opens up a handful of problems that the American government is not prepared to address.

The ubiquity of torture and abuse in prison renders it impossible to completely eradicate such practices, although only extreme cases of terrorist threats and danger could the use of torture be justified. Unfortunately, this vein of thinking is subjecting according to how one defines “extreme.” Nonetheless, the case of the ticking time bomb is one instance in which torture was justified because of how many people were put at risk of harm. Terrorists had hid a nuclear bomb in the middle of a booming city, which was supposed to detonate within the hour of being set off. Had the bomb exploded, millions of people would have perished because there was not ample time for safe evacuation. Authorities questioned a suspected terrorist who refused to divulge vital information regarding where the nuclear bomb was located and how it could be stopped. Such a blaring threat necessitates the use of any means necessary to save an entire city and beyond. Although torture is wrong because it violates human rights, the government is obligated to protect the lives and human rights of millions of people who are put at risk by suspected terrorists.

Works Cited

Amnesty International. “Cruel, Inhuman Degrades us all. Stop Torture and Ill-Treatment in the War on Terror. Amnesty International.  2005. Web. 7 Oct. 2015.  http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ACT40/010/2005 

Bellamy, A.J. “Dirty hands and lesser evils in the War on Terror.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9.3 (2007): 509-526.

Costanzo, M. and E. Geritty. “The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate.” Social Issues and Policy Review   3.1(2009): 179—210

Hersh, Seymour M. Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. Print.

Risen, James. “American Psychological Association Bolstered C.I.A. Torture Program, Report Says.” The New York Times. 30 Apr. 2015. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.   http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/report-says-american-psychological-association-collaborated-on-torture-justification.html?_r=0

Sussman, D. “What’s Wrong with Torture?” Philosophy & Public Affairs 33.1(2005): 1-33.

“U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” United Nations. 1975. Web. 7 Oct.   2015.  http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html