As mentioned in my previous blog post, it is often said that the first duty of a Government is to give protection to its citizens and provide resources against the threat of terrorism. By keeping its citizens safe the government ensures its legitimacy. I previously discussed how a government may cross the line when providing this security, by encroaching on citizens civil liberties and privacy. In this blog post I am going to discuss the other side of the spectrum, when governments infringe on terrorists’ and war prisoners’ human rights by using torture to preserve national security.
The use of torture has been sanctioned by states throughout history, with forms of torture varying greatly in style and duration. It is estimated by Amnesty International that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture despite there existing many worldwide laws against it and it being in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” and since the United Nations General Assembly adopted this declaration other international treaties have also been adopted to prevent the use of torture. Notably the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions.
However, many would argue in certain circumstances the ends justify the means and in particular the benefits to many outweigh the cost to one. Torture is often used in highly time sensitive scenarios and the information could be used to save lives.
In 2005, the columnist Charles Krauthammer defended the use of torture in exceptional situations. In these cases the torturer would be confined to “highly specialized agents who are experts and experienced in interrogation, and who are known not to abuse it”.
In particular he discussed a thought experiment often referred to as “The ticking time bomb scenario”. Normally in this scenario, although variations occur, there is a nuclear bomb that will soon detonate in a populated area. The suspect who planted the bomb has refused to cooperate and disclose information in interrogations but may reveal its whereabouts if tortured. In some versions of this scenario the interrogators have overwhelming evidence to believe that they have the right man.
The scenario poses the question of whether it is ethical to torture the terrorist, even in the name of saving a large amount of people.
This scenario is often used to justified the use of torture as a last resort as there exists time constraint and the possibility that there is no other way to retrieve the crucial information. Its an illustration of a situation where some would find the benefits of the people in danger outweigh the costs to the suspects.
Finally, in the process of being tortured, the suspect could also supply information that was not previously requested by the interrogator which would prove vital. This is relevant as officials may not have realised what questions should also be asked.
In contrast with this on the other hand there are many flaws in this thought experiment. For starters the information intelligence agencies gather is mostly not verifiable. As a consequence of this, there exists a possibility that the wrong person is being investigated. Is it worth the risk to unjustly torture someone who is innocent, if there is even a slight doubt of their guilt?
If this person were innocent and were tortured they may lie as a form of self protection, to end the unbearable stress. This would only serve to waste valuable time and if the time limit is what makes the act justifiable then surely the potential of wasted time negates that justification.
In 2006 the BBC held a poll in 25 nations to gauge support for and against torture. The findings of there poll were that an average of 59% of people altogether across the nations rejected torture. Nevertheless, the culture division on the matter highlighted a clear divide between the countries which strongly rejected the use of torture and nations where this rejection was less strong. Notably for example the distinct difference between Italy, where only 14% supported torture and India, where 37% supported torture and only 23% opposed its use.
But is torture even effective? It has been long recorded that people being tortured will lie and admit to anything to end it. In medieval times people being were tortured would admit to being witches or warlocks. In modern day countless studies have been done which indeed show that the information received from torture is often inaccurate.
The Economist magazine suggested that perhaps torture endures because it does work in some particular instances to extract vital information, if those being tortured are actually guilty.
However Professor Shane O’Mara, a neuroscientist of Trinity College, extensively studied torture to see if there was credible evidence of it being an effective technique. He found that as a result of the severe mental stresses applied by the torture, for example pain, fear and sleep deprivation, the suspects cognitive functions and memories are highly impaired. As a result of this it is unlikely to receive any reliable information. Torture succeeds in producing an intense desire to talk to stop the stresses but this does not guarantee what being said is true or if the suspect is still capable of telling the truth.
Finally we must examine the impact on society that torture has. Over the long term a society that accepts or fosters the use of torture will become more desensitised to its brutal nature. This will lead to torture having more wide spread use far outside of the localised situations it was initially used for, perhaps even eventually being used by a government on its own citizens. Torture being used and socially accepted by one country also impacts on their relationships with other countries.
Allies of a country that supports the use of torture would be less likely to trust them and it creates a credible recruitment tool for terrorist organisations to use.
Not to mention the psychological impact on torturers is also rarely taken into account. The CIA Torture Report, found that during the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the team interrogating him sent messages that showed various levels of concern and discomfort with torture being used.
In conclusion torture has been proven to be ineffective and has been outlawed by many international treaties. Still today there exists an overwhelming amount of support for it, with President elect Donald Trump promising to reverse the ban on water-boarding and many countries still being in favour of its use. A governments approval of torture leads down a slippery slope, one where morals slowly become ignored. If torture is as ineffective as science would lead us to believe, is it bloodlust that continues our use of it? Finally a government that supports torture potentially ostracises its allies and strengthen its enemies. In its attempt to protect its citizens it actually in the long run puts them further at risk, from terrorism and from the potential for eventual corruption.