Ethics and the War on Terrorism - Research Paper Example

Ethics and the War on Terrorism: justifying torture in the war against terrorism Following the September-Eleventh attacks on the United States, lively debates on the support of torture interrogation of terrorists emerged within the public forums. These arguments base largely on the “ticking bomb” scenario. Although these virtue ethics provide incisive arguments from both supporting and opposing sides of torture, they remain subject to further practical evaluations. The utilitarian arguments alongside other ethical and logical perspectives form the basis of these arguments on the subject of torture in terror. This essay discusses the issue of torture in the issue of terrorism interrogations and the ethical underpinnings of the issue. I define the issue as applies to international and human rights perspectives, its origin, and point of view in favor and against employing of torture in the war against terror. Introduction Terrorism is not morally justifiable, neither is there a single methodology successful in addressing the issue of terror. Therefore, various investigative agencies apply combined techniques of gathering intelligence with respect to terror activities. However, ethical and moral arguments encompass the war against terror, as the techniques used to gather information from uncooperative suspects are illegal (Blakeley, 2011). The leading of these is the use of torture techniques in gathering intelligence. The question of the ethical perspective on the use of torture in addressing terror continues to elicit lively debates, with each side holding stern views on the topic. The Ethical origin of the issue Torture entails the process of inflicting severe pain to someone with the purpose of forcing him or her to do or say something. It a practical approach used since immemorial time against prisoners of war, suspected insurgents and spies and political prisoners (McCoy, 2012). However, with respect to terrorism, the governments identified the form of violence called terrorism in the period between 1970s and 1980s. Thus, this is where the historical origin of the relations between torture terrorism also begins. Governments used the systemic torture in conflicts against rebels, insurgents, and resistance groups over hundreds of years in the past. However, the question remains whether these conflicts constitute the war against terrorism. Governments often refer to their non-state violent opponents as terrorists. Nonetheless, the ascertaining of their involvement in terrorist activity, in various cases, remains a debatable subject. Since the 9/11 assault on America, the subject of the use of torture to gain useful information from suspected terrorist, became a lively discussion (Hoffman, 2013). The controversy stoked with the suggestion by various opinion leaders in the country that ‘torture warrants’ are appropriate for application in the cases of war against terror. This provoked torrents of criticism, with the subject becoming practical rather than theoretical as was in the previous discussions. The administration denies the authorization of various techniques of torture categorically. The international and American law forbids various techniques from application in gathering information from suspected terrorists. Such techniques include waterboarding, hypothermia and deprivation of sleep to force confessions from suspects. The international conventions against torture in their laws forbid any form of torture and inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment against people. The International Convention against Torture (CAT) dictates that her signatories, including the United States should undertake prevention of inhuman treatment and torture, without providing any exceptional circumstances. However, despite these regulatory measures under the international conventions, the subject remains lively in various jurisdictions (McCoy, 2012). The subject of terrorism continues to inflict fear, pain and loss of lives in humanity, a factor that necessitates governments to incorporate all necessary measures to guard against terror. Thus, the debate on the ethical issue in a justifying use of torture in the war against terrorism continues. Both proponents and opponents of use of torture hold varied views on the issue. Arguments justifying torture in the war against terrorism The proponents of the use of torture in the war against terrorism to interrogate the terror suspects pose various supporting views that originate from philosophical, psychological, and ethical perspectives. To begin with, there is the normative reason to justify the use of torture interrogative techniques, which argues that in most scenarios, especially where the case is urgent, normal interrogative measures don not yield results. The terror cells often consist of extreme ideological roots, a factor that means it is nearly impossible for the suspect to betray their side. Thus, torture is the only effective means of breaching the determination of the suspect and yields the necessary information (Nincic & Ramos, 2012). The normal interrogation techniques do not succeed in yielding results. Another argument that proponents of torture in justifying its application pose is that it saves time and saves lives. These arguments are clear from the scenario of a ‘ticking live bomb’ where the attack is eminent and the suspect is in custody. In such a case, it is the only time that it determines the safety of the lives at risk. Thus, since the normal procedures of gathering information may take longer than expected, then the question arises of the value of lives at hand and time left. Torture, especially well executed torture techniques are remarkably successful in yielding fast and accurate information from the suspect. Therefore, in view of aspect of time saving and lives, torture is essential in saving the multitudes of lives at risk of perishing from the terror attack. A third argument that stems from an ethical perspective is the utilitarian position held uniformly by all who support the use of torture in interrogating terror suspects. The utilitarian argument proposes that the suffering of a single individual is better than the suffering of multitudes of lives. The loss of a single life in order to save several other lives is bearable and better than saving that single life and losing the many others. This argument presents two sides of unethical practices but understandable and justifiable from logical perspectives. Firstly, it is unethical to torture a person, but is justifiable since it is for the greater good of many people. Secondly, it is unethical to let many people from the moral responsibility of saving a single life due to the abolishment of torture, which would yield positive results (Blakeley, 2011). Therefore, the utilitarian argument supports use of torture against the suspect, considering that it is the potential means of saving tens, hundreds, or thousands of law-abiding citizens. Thus, torture for the greater good is justifiable. Additionally, the acts of terror usually have no qualms over the suffering and consequences of their actions on the victims. Moreover, in scenarios where the terrorist capture anyone opposed to their activity always torture them remarkably (McCoy, 2012). Therefore, torturing terror suspects is only fair since it is a means of returning the favor, thus, torturing them is justifiable. Moreover, the torturing by the legal authorities help to gather intelligence, which is the correct outcome of the activity as compared to their torture, which is for personal gratifications. Thus, torture is a way of making the terrorist compensate for their activities of terror. The war against terrorism is far from ending, thus, torture is a means of creating a pathway to ending this war. The torture on the captured terrorists or suspects serves to facilitate useful information for the war against terror. Additionally, the torture activity also serves as a warning and deterrent to persons planning to carry out activity of terror. Fear is a powerful and motivating factor in averting an eminent attack. When the suspect fears for what would happen in the case of their capture and torture that they will suffer, then this deters them from committing a criminal activity. The Taliban for instance, use fear as a tactic to recruit people into their camps (Blakeley, 2011). Thus, instilling torturing activity and making it visible to the enemy conveys a message of warning, deterring them the possibility of engaging in the terror activity. This is since, they fear suffering the torture under the government’s custody. Lastly, the ethical question of whose rights are more significant, a single person who is a known criminal or hundreds of lives of innocent people also is basis for justifying torture. A suspect with useful information for saving more lives does not overcome the moral responsibility in logical action of saving these lives. Therefore, the use of torture, when it is the lone means present to save the lives at risk at the expense of the single criminal rights, then torture is justifiable. Comparing the life of a single culprit to that of two innocent people is morally wrong; thus, torture is understandably justifiable in the war against terrorism. These factors present the supporting arguments by proponents of use of torture in terrorism interrogating techniques to gather intelligence. Arguments against justification of torture in the war against terrorism Those opposed to the use of torture in gathering intelligence against suspected terrorists propose the following arguments to support their stance. Firstly, they argue that the torture victims lie to save themselves. The fact is that torturing inflicts intense pain and suffering in the body of a person, taking over all psyche of the victim. Therefore, in such scenarios, where a person perceives that even in their innocence or lack of useful knowledge on the terror activity, they may tell agree to the assumptions of the interrogating authority just to end their suffering. The torturing for those who may not stand the activity, thus, causes them to deceive yielding inaccurate information. Moreover, during interrogation, most of these terrorists have intense training in perseverance and are usually ready to die for their course, a factor that may cause them to give inaccurate information intentionally during the torturous interrogation. Thus, torturing does not always yield effective results in the fight against terror. It only causes inhumane suffering to the individual for vain reasons. Another argument, which formulates basis for the argument against torturing, is the human rights perspective. The civil liberties apply to all people whether innocent or suspect of criminal activity. Therefore, human rights activists and their organizations argue that torture is a gross misconduct on pat of the government and under the international law it is not acceptable (Nincic & Ramos, 2012). The United States for instance is a member of several international sanctions of human rights, a factor that ties it to adherence to these regulations. The Collective Declaration of Human Rights does prohibit the placing of anyone under torture and brutality, ruthless and demeaning treatment. Therefore, in the event of applying torture to a person with intentions of gathering intelligence, the factor for consideration remains those human rights remain the guiding morals for engaging the interrogation (Blakeley, 2011). Therefore, subjection of such a person to torture interferes with their rights, as well as, may result in diverse consequences of physical and mental suffering in the future, especially when the case applies to an innocent person accused falsely. Additionally, torturing creates criminals out of innocent people and ruins their lives. This is possible in the scenario where the accused is innocent but due to the unbearable torturous activity of the interrogating officer, making them tell lies. Therefore, there is not means of authenticating the genuine and credibility of information gathered through the torturous methods; thus, the aspect of justifying torture as a useful means of countering terrorism is not justifiable. Another argument is that torturing is against the declaration in the constitution. Similarly, the activities of terror are against the confines of the law; therefore, acting by using torture as a means of addressing the issue on terrorism is to justify that two wrongs make a right. Using torture, which is against the human rights dictations, implies that using the wrong procedure is permissible in addressing emerging security threats. Thus, this raises the ethical debate on the subject of using a wrong to fight another wrong (Nincic & Ramos, 2012). This is not an objective and useful means of addressing the issue of terrorism. Therefore, the use of torture to gather intelligence and act as a deterring factor is not effective and is further not permissible in the fight against terror. Therefore, this refutes the claims of justifying the utilization of torture in the battle against terror. Additionally, opposing the utilitarian argument is the perspective of religion. Those against justification of torture argue that utilitarian practice is in line with the ideology of religion in which suffering a person for the greater good is acceptable. However, the controversy arises that the religious perspectives dictate that the suffering of this individual should be voluntary rather than forced. Therefore, religious platforms oppose the justification the use of torture against terror a suspect in the interrogation procedures is a factor not permissible in all religious platforms. The use of torture according to religious views is that the divine justice is not for the people to implement, thus, opposing the utilitarian argument that supports torture techniques. Lastly, in view of the urgency of the information required to in the event of interrogation, the means of torture do not assure gathering of accurate information or safety of the live at risk. Non-torturous and traditional procedures of gathering information although take longer, have a better position of yielding accurate responses from the interrogation. Therefore, the opponents of torture use his to argue against the justification of torture in interrogating suspects. Moreover, the organization of the terror units also presents a challenge to the effectiveness of the method used to gather information. For instance, where the suspect is lower at the ranks, they may not know what the senior persons in the organization of the terror group may plan. Thus, interrogating them through torture is only inflicting pain in their bodies (Slater, 2009). The suspects of terror that die from torture and in the hands of interrogating officials appear as a martyr. Therefore, the opponents of torture use this as a basis to towards opposing the use of torture in interrogation techniques. Thus, through these arguments, both logical and ethical, they oppose the justification of torture in the war against terrorism. Conclusion Despite these various controversial perspectives of the subject of torture in terrorism, a surprising number of Americans are supportive towards use of extreme measures in addressing the issue. The poll results indicate increasing support of the torturing technique in addressing the terror issue. Additionally, there are other emanating controversial subjects such as the participation of doctors in the torturous activities of gathering intelligence that feature in the debate (Slater, 2009). The doctors violate their ethical and professional expectations by participating in these activities. Many initially legit techniques of interrogation, today, fall under torturous techniques of interrogation. Nonetheless, the war against terror remains a priority in the security of the citizens; thus, it is essential for the debates to conclude and offer a final decision on the issue of use of torture in gathering intelligence. References Blakeley, R. (2011). Dirty Hands, Clean Conscience? The CIA Inspector General’s Investigation of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” in the War of Terror and the Torture Debate. Journal of Human Rights, 10(4), 544-561. Doi: 1080/14754835.2011.619406 Hoffman, S. (2013). Is Torture Justified in Terrorism Cases?: Comparing U.S. and European views. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 33379. McCoy, A. W. (2012). Torture and impunity. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press. Nincic, M., & Ramos, J. (2012). Torture in the Public Mind. International Studies Perspectives, 12(3), 231-249. DOI:10.1111/J. 1528-3585.2011.00229.X Slater, J (2009). Tragic Choices in the War on Terrorism: Should We Try to Regulate and Control Torture?. Political Science Quarterly (Academy of Political Science), 121(2), 191-215. Read More