The War on Terror - Essay Example

? Can torture be ethical? Discuss in relation to the War on Terror. Introduction Throughout the long history of humans and specifically the Western society, till the 19th century, torture has been long used as the tool for interrogation. It has been considered in a wide array as a genuine and rightful tool to prove the innocence and dig out the guilty. Torture was genuinely accepted socially and overlooked. In fact, it is surprising to look into the history and find out that the Church and as well as the state allowed torture regularly. There were often many manuals given to convey the torture techniques and the implications. Written codes and conducts were also regulated to redefine the process of torture and differentiate what is acceptable and what is impermissible (Scott, 2003, p27). As the theories enhanced, there is a huge debate on the torture ethics which is going on since years, and especially after 2001 when there was an initiative of the war on terror by collaboration of many countries. Some debate that torture has always been immoral and unjustifiable, whereas many of the modern theorists and socialists suggest that if torturing an evil man because of which many lives can be saved, then there is no better moral decision that could be taken (Wisnewski, Emerick, 2009, p 78). Thus, war on terror is a justifiable process which is carried out throughout the Western world, and if it includes the practices of torturing then torture can be considered ethical too, in a broad scope. There are many ethical arguments that have risen up related to torture and its value to the society. The major argument that supports the ethics or torture is the fact that it is an essential tool. Many of the countries condemn the use of torture and consider it not only unethical but also unlawful. Whereas many countries still use it as their tool and consider it as effective in many circumstances (Harbury, 2005, p95). There are many arguments placed forth and the basic debate lie in the views presented by deontological and utilitarian viewpoints. Both the viewpoints hold justification in their own way. The utilitarian viewpoint suggests that torture can be justified if the overall outcome of the action is positive. This refers to the process of torture which is used as a tool to investigate and weed the evil out of a person or criminal. In this belief, the utilitarian thinker might consider the outcome as the only source of judgment and to decide whether the act of torturing is moral or not. The outcome can define the long term effects in which lives may be saved and evil may be finished. This is the primary factor on which torture is used as a tool (Greenberg, 2006, p50). Opposing the utilitarian view is the deontological view which came from the word duty. This viewpoint suggests that the rules and values hold immense importance and they should be fulfilled as the first priority rather than the outcome. Utilitarian thinkers give immense respect to the moral values and ethics over the outcomes of allowing torture or restricting it. However, if the outcome is uncertain or can not be known, then the utilitarian thinker would state that torture is wrong and unjustifiable (Skerker, 2010, p154). There are any arguments seen favoring the utilitarian views against torture and in some parts of the world, the laws support these views as well. The war on terror or war on terrorism is known to describe the campaign set out by the US and includes many other countries such as the UK. The term is commonly used and it applies to the campaign which is initiated against the al-Qaeda and other militant groups which are associated to it. The aim of this campaign was to eliminate the powers and actions of such militant organizations. The September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre gave rise to many militant groups that tend to declare war against America. These groups were the terrorists and in regard to those, the phrase War on Terror was used and made popular by the military organizations of the US. Soon it became a global agenda in which many countries participated to signify a political and global struggle to lead down the organizations that are designated as terrorists and those systems that had cooperation or any sort of connection with these groups (Bellamy, 2006, p122). The war on terror is an important term here as it relates to the torture and the several debates made on torture ethics after the initiative of this campaign. During this campaign, there are several events where torture was used as a tool to investigate and learn the truth out of those who were working for terrorist groups. In fact, it is this campaign which started the debate over the torture ethics and the acceptance of torture as a moral deed (Ginbar, 2008, p15). The militant officers thought torture is one of the best way to know the truth and weed the guilty in order to save the lives of many and to save the country form something utterly dangerous; terrorism. Terrorism has been a very brutal truth and bold agenda that has been existent in the societies much over the past decade. The events involved in terrorism are very audacious and mostly include strong planning and long term scheduling. It is not the result of one person’s mind but a joint venture of many minds working together on a certain mission. Terrorism has never been justified (Kottow, 2006, p 465). However, the war on terror is as it includes the destruction and demolition of activities that tend to ruin the society’s peace and give long term affects to the people. Thus, for such brutal and strong ideas and planning, the break away also needs to be very crucially planned and idealized. The war on terror groups and the militant officers have thus, adopted the technique of torturing the terrorists in order to get to the truth and know their unfolded planning that might destroy thousands of lives. The strong and heedful minds of the terrorists do not tend to open up in just psychological torture. Hence, many of the theorists and practitioners have concluded that in order to be able to unfold the terrorist activities, it is very important to give them physical torture. This is also the basis of the utilitarian argument in favor of torture and defining it as ethical (Bagaric, Clarke, 2007, p11). Many of the great thinkers can add their names to the utilitarian thinkers and present their views clearly in favor of torture ethics. One of the reasons why torture endures is clearly that torture greatly works in some instances where the information and confessions are needed to be extracted from those who are being tortured and who are indeed found guilty (Moghaddam, 2007, p 440). One of the judges in the United States Court of Appeals who is highly influential suggested that if torture is one of the only means to obtain valuable information which is necessary for the prevention of the explosion of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, then torture shall be and will be used to get to the information, and anyone who doubts that this is the case should be in position of the responsibility (Lang, Beattie, 2009, p28). An argument presented in view of the utilitarian point of view suggests that most of the tortures are carried out where they are not used as a method of extracting information, but instead as a method of vanquishing and terrorizing the population and enabling the state forced to give out with the ordinary means of ascertaining innocence or guilt (Gushee, 2006). Therefore, they suggest that it is better to accept the assassination of a few individuals by bombers rather than a much bigger number reaching up to hundreds or thousands of innocent people, along with the legal and constitutional provisions being destroyed. In one of the vents in Italy, a statement was made by the General against terrorism which stated that it is better to face the loss of one member rather than giving an initiative to torture. With this, the General had responded to the security services officers who were in favor of torture against a suspect for the kidnapping of the Prime Minister (Todorov, Walker, Lobo, 2009, p40). After the intense ideas provided by the war on terror officials, they were not alone who supported the utilitarian view and the favor of the torture acts. There were many scholars, writers, politicians and lawyers also who supported this view and wrote about it in many articles and books. This created the awareness where the citizens started to understand the view points of the militant officers and the need for torture (Allhoff, 2003, p110). As far as the ethics of torture are considered, it is sure that the virtue ethics can not be confused with the deontological ethics. The ethical view of torture has been, however, taken to be in a very broad meaning. When we look at it literally, there may be no scholar or writer in the world who can relate torture with ethics and moral values. But when it is about the political and social term, ethical torture, and the meaning can well be understood and valued (Radack, 2006, n.p). The general moral intuitions about the hypothetical views about torture is that if the choice is given to be between torture or all of the humanity perishes, any general moral intuition would choose torture. This is the very general instinct that comes to the mind of any officer and any citizen supporting the idea of torture ethics (Iacopino, 2002, p4). If the idea is to torture one man or suffer the risk of a terrorist attack that would victimize several innocent lives, then the most moral choice is to torture. The more the facts and reasoning has been spread out, the more people have supported the utilitarian viewpoints (Luban, 2009, p220). Whereas many of the world’s strong nations such as France believe in the deontological view that torture exceeds and violates the moral values and dimensions under which the state and the militant officers of all kinds should operate. Torture is illegal in France as it suggests that ethical boundaries should be respected and not crossed. They also believe that initiating torture will eventually make the society and the people of the society bold and sensational to the thought of torture or violence. Thus, they strongly provoke the deontologist views and suggest that torture is immoral and remains immoral in all circumstances. As far as the information on terrorists and the war on terror are concerned, they believe that there are many other ways in which information can be uncovered (Lee, 2007, p279). In a controversial decision, it has also been held that torture should be ethical only where torture warrants are issued by the government or the courts. This would mean that torture is made legal but only under certain circumstances where the court thinks it is necessary to do so and psychological strain has been failed. Many of the countries have adopted this policy and they issue torture warrants to carry out the torture activities for specific events such as terrorism. The torture warrants are issues only on the interrogation of suspects and often the state imposes moderate physical torture on the suspects regarding all the security forces and their suggestions (Gross, 2007, p39). Hence, torture is considered to be ethical in a wide scope of the meaning of ethical and moral meaning the saving of many lives by torturing one. In such situations torture becomes the only moral decision and thus, acceptable (Costanzo, 2007, p11). On the other hand, the war on terror is a campaign which is justified and which includes several important investigation techniques which includes torture. In regard of the war on terror, torture can be ethical in many ways. The utilitarian view has throughout supported this view and based its viewpoints on the outcomes of the torture being positive. Besides all the facts placed regarding torture, it is very important to make sure that the torture is allowed and is being used ethically. The state can impose certain boundaries under which the torture takes place and regulate it in regard of the intensity of the course of action. This is because the unethical ways in which American prisoners have been treated have always been unethical and unjustifiable torture. These factors informs us how well we will treat torture in the future, and the preference will be given to the utilitarian reasons as they justify the use of torture under major circumstances. References Allhoff, F. 2003. “Terrorism and torture” International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17 (1), pp. 105-118. Bellamy, A. 2006. “No pain, no gain? Torture and ethics in the war on terror”. International Affairs 82 (1), pp. 121-148. Bagaric, M., Clarke J. 2007. Torture: When the Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible. NY: SUNY Press. Costanzo. M. 2007. “Psychologists and the use of torture in interrogations” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 7(1), pp65-73 Gross, O. 2007. “Torture and an Ethics of Responsibility” Law, Culture and the Humanities, 3(1), pp. 35-54 Greenberg, K. 2006. The Torture Debate in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ginbar, Y. 2008. Why Not Torture Terrorists: Moral, Practical and Legal Aspects of 'Ticking Bomb' Justification for Torture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gushee, D. 2006. “5 Reasons Torture Is Always Wrong” Christianity Today 52 (2), pp. 32-37. Harbury, J. 2005. Truth, Torture, and the American Way: The History and Consequences of US. Texas: Beacon Press. Iacopino, V. 2002. The Medical Documentation of Torture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kottow, M. 2006. “Should medical ethics justify violence?” Journal of medical ethics 32(8), pp464–467. Lang, A., Beattie A. 2009. War, Torture and Terrorism: Rethinking the Rules of International Security. NY: Taylor & Francis. Lee, S. 2007. Intervention, Terrorism, and Torture: Contemporary Challenges to Just War Theory. London: Springer. Luban, D. 2009. “Human Dignity, Humiliation, and Torture” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 19 (3), pp. 211-230. Moghaddam, F. 2007. Interrogation policy and American psychology in the global context. NY: Taylor & Francis. Radack, J. 2006. “Tortured Legal Ethics: The Role of the Government Advisor in the War on Terrorism” University of Colorado Law Review 77 (1). Todorov, T., Walker G., Lobo R. 2009. Torture and the War on Terror. London: Seagull Books. Scott, G. 2003. History of Torture throughout the Ages. London: Kessinger Publishing. Skerker, M. 2010. An Ethics of Interrogation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wisnewski, J. and Emerick, R. 2009. The Ethics of Torture. US: Bloomsbury. Read More