Major Analysis Paper

Torture and America’s Role

Torture and American interrogation techniques are the human rights debate of the century. The way the American government responds will shape domestic and foreign perception on the morals underlying the American military and justice systems, because the U.S is held to high international expectations, but still tries to protect its citizens first. While the U.S. tries to balance national security and respect for human dignity, the question is asked, how far is the world’s largest superpower willing to go? By some standards, we have already crossed the line based on our treatment of detainees. Torture is an unavoidable discussion because it is a worldwide issue. America’s decision has the ability to ultimately shape an international audience and the world’s understanding of what is acceptable and what is not.

The persuasive appeal is highly emotional on both fronts. Since a democratic process will largely make the decision, much of the information and articles target the general American population. On one side, groups call for the government and military to abide by international laws, respect the rights and dignity of all people, and uphold American ideals of liberty, freedom, and justice. The opposition emphasizes the severity of our predicament and encourages “advanced interrogation techniques” as a last resort to protect our way of life from terrorists.

Until September 11th, the question of torture was a non-issue. In 1992 Congress passed the Torture Victims Protection Act, which allows a torture victim to sue the torturer in U.S. courts regardless of where the act occurred. More importantly, America signed onto the 1949 United Nations Geneva Convention that prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners captured in war. The Geneva Convention was also incorporated into the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice and federal criminal liability was established for violations.

However, with the “war on terror,” a “new paradigm” emerged. This new fight is against Islamic extremists, terrorist who ruthlessly attack our way of life. People believe we are fighting a new war and need to make exceptions to save citizens and protect ourselves. Executive power was expanded and detainees could be designated as terrorists by presidential fiat (rather an status review by a tribunal). If designated as such, the prisoner is denied habeas corpus, the right to contest their detention, and have the potential to be maltreated. When information on Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons and the CIA’s secret detentions and deportations was released, the international community turned their back against America and condoned our practices.

Defendants of torture observe that “collateral damage (Harris)” is bound to occur. In war, casualties on both sides are unavoidable. Furthermore, Harris claims that targeting specific people of interest is more beneficial than killing innocent civilians. “Accidentally torturing an innocent man is better than accidentally blowing him and his children to bits (Harris).” Thiessen, in his article, observed that the CIA program is limited and restrained. Only three detainees were subjected to waterboarding, asserting the fact that the CIA uses the “least coercive method necessary (Thiessen).”

Despite the evidence that the truth is negated during torture confessions, if there is a chance our interests will be advanced, it need only equal the “chance of such occasioned by the dropping of a single bomb (Harris)” to be justified. Similarly, arguments make it clear that interrogations are only used on individuals who have unique information and are withholding information (Thiessen). It is a last resort, reserved for the terrorists who are knowledgeable and well connected in the plans of their organizations. “There is no other way to find out what these terrorists are plotting and planning (Thiessen).”

They argue that “enhanced interrogation techniques” are ethical and necessary in limited circumstances. Thiessen defends the use of CIA interrogations under the Judeo-Christian tradition of “Just War” theory, where there are circumstances under which war is permissible and necessary, and ways it can be ethically conducted. Harris sees the situation as a forced choice. Drop bombs and potentially harm many or target one individual and save the others. According to some, this is the future of war and conflict; torture is simply unavoidable. “If we are unwilling to torture, we should be unwilling to wage modern war (Harris).”

Defendents craft opponents of torture as naively following “radical pacifism (Thiessen).” “There seems no question that if all the good people in the world adopted Gandhi’s ethics, the thugs would inherit the earth (Harris).” Instead they assert that the interrogations are for a moral purpose. Despite the common objection to torture based on the morals, Harris urges readers to separate the violence from one’s idea of torture. In his perspective, it is better to risk a terrorist’s life before putting someone innocent in danger. Torture is used as a last resort to get the necessary information in order to “protect society and the lives of the innocent (Thiessen).”

In short, today’s modern warfare calls for new techniques, among them advanced interrogation methods. In the name of national security and the interests of innocent people everywhere, torture is the less of two evils and currently the best option available to the American military. As long as the practice is restrained, limited, and for a moral purpose, it is necessary and ethical.

In contrast, others claim the U.S. has a double standard with torture. Americans, the “good guys,” are allowed to employ torture tactics, but we forbid it from being used against our citizens. Torture is “by its nature, contagious and corrosive (Horton).” If it is allowed in some circumstances, it will spread and its prohibition could not be controlled.

This side claims the battle over torture is a moral issue, a struggle for the “soul of the nation (Horton).” The issue raises the question for the rest of the nation, “Is this really who we are (On Torture)?” America’s image was severely tarnished in light of the torture accusations and to many close allies U.S. policy is doubted more than ever. American ideals and values that we were once admired for are now signs of our hypocrisy (On Torture).

Both texts classify the torture tactics as Bush administration policy. They clearly outline the fact that the acts that occurred constituted torture, not simply interrogation. “Some of their methods- simulated drowning, extreme ranges of heat and cold…had been classified as torture for decades by civilized nations (On Torture).” Most of the blame is put upon President Bush. They describe his administration as “hidden in the shadows and have manipulated the levers of power to shield themselves from public scrutiny and from accountability in any form (Horton).”

Advocates against torture describe the false intelligence that results from interrogation. Horton outlines the evidence taken from al-Libi. While he was tortured, he claimed Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. They go on to observe that the use of torture endangers the lives of Americans captured by enemy forces and helps in al-Qaeda’s recruiting (On Torture).
Lastly Horton explains the role of John Donne’s clerical anti-torture stance. From Donne’s position as an Anglican priest, he believed that torture is a moral sin. He said of tortures, “They therefore oppose God in his purpose of dignifying the body of man…mangle this body, which is the organ in which God breathes (Horton).”

As explored above, torture is seen as a moral issue and one that questions the very essence of the American spirit. Not only has the U.S. been accused of disobeying international law, but also our own military and judicial systems are called into question. “Clinging to the administration’s policies will only cause further harm to America’s global image and to our legal system (On Torture).” Torture is an issue that begs to be corrected for all the world’s citizens.
Both positions emphasize the urgency and strong implications that are associated with torture. America’s decision will ultimately reflect our culture’s values and morals. Advocates on either side believe the U.S. will set a precedent; the whole world is watching.

Defendants of torture agree, to combat the threats the country is facing now, harsher methods are authorized. To uphold American citizens’ right to life, the military is morally obligated to interrogate detainees when conditions warrant it.

However, the textual arguments seem to contain contradictions. Harris claimed that even if tortured confessions were unreliable, the U.S. should continue to use interrogation methods in the “chance that our interests will be advanced.” If it is a one-in-a-million shot, is there any justification or defense of torture? It seems as though this argument should have been considered irrelevant. In addition, the justification based on Just War theory was a stretch as well. Three of the four conditions for Just War Theory are debatable in the case of torture, among them: there must be a serious prospect of success, all other means of putting an end it (war) must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective, and the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The Just War Theory, used by Thiessen, is a poor use of rhetoric as well.

For opponents of torture, the issue is largely a moral one. U.S.’s image, ideals, and the world’s faith in us are all in question. In order to revive the American spirit, torture must be eradicated so real justice can prevail.

Nevertheless, the expert testimony of Darius Rejali produces a rhetorical fallacy. Rejali’s position on torture is summarized as follows, once torture becomes a practice authorized “by law in some circumstances it spread very quickly, and ultimately the prohibitions against torturing citizens could not be sustained (Horton).” It is a slippery slope in that it claims that one action will lead to another and another having a significant impact. It does not allow for a middle ground on the issue of interrogation of detainees verses the country’s own citizens.

However, the argument surrounding torture is still relevant due to recent administration and presidential changes. President Obama holds torture in a critical and unconstitutional light compared to President Bush’s approval of the tactics. The recent policy changes enacted by Obama would be one place to enter the conversation. The issues surrounding the Guantanamo Bay closure and what to do with detainees at the facility could be explored from multiple angles. Furthermore, at this point in history, the continuation of interrogations is uncertain, and each appeal can help shape national decisions on this serious topic. The issue of torture must be discussed, debated, and decided for America and for our future.


Bibliography

Harris, Sam. “In Defense of Torture.” The Huffington Post. 14 October 2005. Accessed 15 January 2009. < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html>

Horton, Scott. “Challenging Torture.” Harper’s Magazine. 4 February 2008. Accessed 28 January 2009. < http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002305>

“On Torture and American Values.” The New York Times. 7 October 2007. Accessed 31 January 2009.

Thiessen, Marc. “The Moral Basis for CIA Interrogations.” National Review Online. 27 January 2009. Accessed 29 January 2009.