Major Analysis Paper

Torture and America’s Role

Torture and American interrogation techniques have dominated recent international news. The way the American government responds will shape domestic and foreign perception on the morals underlying the American military and justice systems. The U.S is held to high international expectations, but still tries to maintain its domestic affairs and protect American citizens. While the U.S. tries to balance national security and respect for human dignity, the question is asked, how far is the world’s superpower willing to go? By some standards, American treatment of detainees has already crossed the line. Torture is an unavoidable discussion because it is a worldwide issue. America’s decision ultimately has the ability to 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 impact the county’s 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. These arguments tend to be targeted toward a liberal audience since they are more sympathetic to issues of social freedom. The opposition emphasizes the severity of the security predicament and encourages “advanced interrogation techniques” as a last resort to protect the American way of life from terrorists. This reasoning resonates with a conservative crowd because most conservatives advocate a strong military and more forceful international policy.

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 (Bullard, 15).

However, with the “war on terror,” a “new paradigm” emerged. This new fight is against Islamic extremists, terrorist who attacked the World Trade Center on September 11th. People believe the U.S. is fighting a new war and needs to make exceptions to save citizens and protect the country. 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 (Bullard, 15).

The proponents’ rhetoric crafts a world where the alternative to torture is death. Reality for the group closely resembles the work of the Counter Terrorism Unit from the TV drama “24.” It is do or die for America and the time bomb is ticking. Everyday is a scramble to save the world from certain death by the terrorists (Mayer).

Much of their stance toward torture is grounded in a hierarchy primarily valuing security, national interests, and authority. Proponents assume there will be “collateral damage” in this War on Terror and in their view suspected terrorists should not be excluded from the deaths and injuries. Sam Harris, in his article “In Defense of Torture,” stated, “Accidentally torturing an innocent man is better than accidentally blowing him and his children to bits.”

Since proponents assume detainees possess valuable information, which threatens American’s well being, it is easy to justify the means that extract it. They present torture as a last resort. It is reserved for the terrorists who are knowledgeable and well connected to plans of destruction. “There is no other way to find out what these terrorists are plotting and planning,” said Marc Thiessen in “The Moral Basis for CIA Interrogations.” Interrogations are only used on individuals withholding unique information.

Considering the threat that terrorism poses and the potential for certain untold disaster, proponents hail the restraint of the program. They claim the CIA uses the “least coercive methods necessary (Thiessen).” It is asserted that the program is limited. The small-scale of torture is cited as only three detainees were subjected to waterboarding (Thiessen).

Proponents include “enhanced interrogation techniques” in their world of ethical and necessary precautions. It is a choice that is not preferred, but a forced choice based on the American predicament. In their view, torture is the future of war and conflict. “If we are unwilling to torture, we should be unwilling to wage modern war (Harris).” Torture is simply unavoidable.

Characters who act in the proponents’ world epitomize the differences in each side’s approach to terrorism. Opponents are criticized for their lack of action and naivety in trusting “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).” In this world, the opponents are foolish and cowardly. Not only are they unwilling to take on the threats, but the population will suffer because of it.

Proponents, on the other hand, are the heroes working actively to prevent a crisis. The interrogations are properly applied to fulfill moral purposes. They work with the notion that it is better to risk a terrorist’s life before putting someone innocent in danger (Harris). 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 (Thieesen).

In contrast, opponents perceive a world where the U.S. is in a moral dilemma. All the morals that the country has held true were dashed with the torture allegations. In the opponents’ view, the notion of torture is a moral issue, a struggle for the “soul of the nation (Horton).” American ideals and values that the country was once admired for are now signs of hypocrisy. In this reality, the question is raised to the citizens, “Is this really who we are (On Torture)?”

As with the proponents, values and morals dominate the opponents’ discussions. However, their value hierarchies differ substantially. Opponents disagree with the favor militaristic reasoning of their counterparts. Instead they regard the ideals of humanity, integrity, and honor as the most important when framing this debate.

Opponents hold the view that torture is immoral; they also compliment it with evidence that it is ineffective and counterproductive. In the article “Challenging Torture” by Scott Horton, he outlined the false intelligence that has resulted from interrogations. Al-Libi, while being torture, claimed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. Opponents imply that many of the challenges America is facing are a direct result of the mistake to torture. In the opponents’ world, people are now in more danger than before. The article “On Torture and American Values” claims U.S. soldier who are captured now have a higher risk of being tortured themselves. Al-Qaeda has also benefited with a boost in their recruitment numbers.

Considering the moral wrongdoings that are associated with torture, religion influences the opponents’ worldview. According to Anglican priest John Donne, 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).” His clear, clerical, anti-torture stance calls on the faithful to have the courage to eradicate it.

The proponent characters in the opponent’s world highlight the worst of the war hawk tactics of recent years. President Bush and his administration are viewed and criticized for acting out of line and barbarically. “Some of their methods- simulated drowning, extreme ranges of heat and cold…had been classified as torture for decades by civilized nations (On Torture).” In this world, most of the blame is put directly on the former president. His administration is described as unaccountable, “hidden in the shadows and have manipulated the levers of power to shield themselves from public scrutiny and from accountability in any form (Horton).”

The opponents’ characters are the only hope for America’s redemption. They work to salvage the U.S.’s reputation on the international scene. American morals and ideals need to be restored in the public and governmental realms. These untainted individuals in the opponents’ view have the lofty goal of redefining American justice and making sure this mistake is never repeated again.

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.

To again reiterate the other end of the spectrum, defendants of torture assert that stronger methods are authorized in order to combat the threats the country is facing now. 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 the 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, Thiessen’s justification based on Just War Theory was a stretch as well. Three of the six 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 is a poor use of rhetoric.
Thiessen’s hard-line stance for torture can be a turn off for the undecided population. As President Bush’s former speechwriter, his political ties and close association to the administration discredit his ethos. CIA torturers are “American heroes” Thiessen claimed in a separate instance (Khanna). It would be beneficial to his argument to recognize the opposing side and strategically temper the degree of torture he advocates.

For opponents of torture, to paraphrase, 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 in Horton’s article 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 spreads very quickly, and ultimately the prohibitions against torturing citizens could not be sustained (Horton).” It is a slippery slope in that it claims one action will lead to another and another, having a significant impact. The fallacy does not allow for middle ground on the issue of interrogation of detainees verses the country’s own citizens.

Horton’s argument remains strong based on his background and ethos. As a New York attorney known for his specialty in human rights law and the law of armed conflict, Horton’s qualifications this piece enhance his ethos. The fact that he recently led a number of studies investigating the abuses for the New York City Bar Association make it more probable that people will seriously consider his points and overall stance on torture.

The issues surrounding torture are 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.

It was only days after inauguration that President Obama issued four executive orders, which aim to close the detention center, construct new a legal policy for terrorism detainees, and end the CIA’s “enhanced interrogations.” From the date of the executive orders, January 22, 2009, CIA interrogators are no longer authorized to use any techniques not listed in the Army Field Manual. The manual was rewritten in 2006 to emphasize its compliance with the Geneva Conventions and U.S. laws banning torture (Ackerman).

With all the changes that have come, President Obama has not entirely opened the torture conversation. In a recent torture accusation case, his administration argued for the preservation of state secrets. Previously, concerning the same case, the Bush administration contented that the case should be dropped It was argued that the very act of discussing it could threaten national security and international relations. The similarities that the current administration shares with Bush’s legal stance have upset opponents of torture who were hoping for a more open system (Schwartz).

At this point in history, torture and its continuation is uncertain. Each appeal can help shape national decisions on this serious topic. The issue of torture must be discussed, debated, and decided for America, our future, and the lives of the people on both sides of the interrogations.