The Use of Torture in Interrogations



Loras CollegeThe Use of Torture in InterrogationsJoe McCullough5/3/2013Facts and Stakeholders There is a bomb planted somewhere in the middle of the city of Chicago. You have the man that placed the bomb there and only he knows the location of it. You have him in an interrogation room, do you torture him? Or do you use un-harmful interrogation tactic? Torture can be defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information, punishing, or coercing (Horne, 2009). There is an ongoing argument on what is legal and illegal. The United States gets away with torturing military combatants by giving it a different name. The United States refers to its torture techniques as enhanced interrogation techniques. The enhanced interrogation techniques are clearly defined by the US government; they allow a certain number of times a person can be slammed into a wall (30), and how many times someone can be water-boarded (6 times in two hours), they also define how hard a person can be slapped in the face (Pollock, 2009). After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Bush Administration named the torture tactics enhanced interrogation techniques so that they wouldn’t violate the United Nations Convention Against Torture. We use the term enhanced interrogation techniques because we justify the techniques we use by saying that they are not permanent (Welch, 2009). They justify these techniques as acceptable by saying that they are practically harmless because the injuries that result from the torture are reversible. The United States have allegedly used these enhanced interrogation techniques at several prison camps around the world. They have been seen at Abu Ghraib Prison and Bagram Prison in Afghanistan, as well as Guantanamo Bay, and other prisons in Egypt, Syria, and other countries in Eastern Europe. In Guantanamo Bay and Bagram prison, there were cases of psychological torture that included things such as, prisoners being subjected to loud noises, sexual humiliation and being threatened with attack dogs. The physical torture of prisoners included waterboarding, being thrown into walls, and being shackled to the ceiling. Other cases consisted of prisoners being bound or forced to stand in painful positions, prisoners being kept naked and being deprived of sleep, light, food, and water (Pollock, 2012). The stakeholders in the situation of interrogating enemy combatants include the interrogators, the authority that permit the torture techniques, and the officials all the way up to the president who say that some torture techniques are justified. These people are the stakeholders in the situation because if anything goes wrong in the interrogation, for example, if the prisoner dies, then the death is on the hands of the people that allowed the interrogation and the people that administered the torture. Other stakeholders in this situation can include the person being interrogated. These are the people that are impacted the most by this situation. There have been serious repercussions from torture tactics, or enhanced interrogation techniques. Long term problems include psychological disorders because the use of some torture tactics like threatening, loud music, and sexual humiliation. Also, long term physical harm is caused from beatings, and standing in stress positions for prolonged periods of time (Welch, 2009).Explanation of Ethical Theories The two ethical systems that can be applied to this situation are deontological ethics, and teleological ethics. Deontological ethics are concerned only with the intent of the act. Deontological ethics are centered on the belief that if the first intent of the act was positive, then the act should generally be considered good, even if the outcome is negative. Teleological ethics judge the outcome of the act. Teleological ethics state that even if a bad act ends with good consequences, the act should be considered positive (Pollock, 2012). The two ethical principles that correspond to these systems are categorical imperative and utilitarianism. The categorical imperative is a deontological system that is mainly concerned with humanity. The categorical imperative is an ethics concept that states that we have a duty to act justly, and with humanity. If one person acts without humanity, then we are giving the right to everyone else to act without humanity. Categorical imperative suggests that we should act as if the law was universal. Should we let one person commit a crime, but then arrest someone for the same crime? The categorical imperative concept states that we should behave in a way so that we are not using people for our own purposes to an end. Another principle of the categorical imperative tells us to act in a way as if we were the law makers, so that it is consistent and universal (Pollock, 2012). Utilitarianism is the other ethics concept that corresponds to this situation. Utilitarianism is a branch of the teleological ethical system. Utilitarianism states that we should be thinking about what is right for the greatest good. Utilitarian’s state that the ends of an action justify the means, if it benefits the society, even if it means harm to one individual. If a utilitarian was asked to choose between the good for society or the good for themselves, the utilitarian would choose the society. The utilitarian ethical concept suggests that something is right when it benefits the continuance and good health of the society (Pollock, 2012). Application of Ethical Concepts The two ethical concepts that correspond to this topic are the categorical imperative and utilitarianism. The argument between these two theories is, “Does it work? Vs. Is it humane?” The utilitarian ethical concept asks the question, does it work? The categorical imperative ethical concept asks the question, is it humane? As stated before, the utilitarian ethics states that something is ethical if the ends justify the means, and the categorical imperative suggests that something is ethical only if it can be done universally. The categorical imperative ethical concept is against the use of torture in interrogations. This is due to the fact that people get harmed and could possibly die from the use of torture in interrogations. The categorical imperative states that people should act in a way that is universal. In other words, if we harm someone, then we are giving the right to everyone to harm other people. Through the use of torture in interrogations, the prisoners at Abu Ghraib have serious long term mental and physical problems. At Abu Ghraib, prisoners were put through serious torture techniques. Prisoners were covered with a hood, and then they were put on a box and told to stand with their arms out and hold electrical wires. This is a torture technique used to confuse your sensory deprivation and self-inflict pain (Welch, 2009). This is inhumane treatment of a prisoner. We are confusing his sensory deprivation by having him stand on top of a box and covering his head with a hood. It also causes him to self-inflict pain because he is holding his arms out. According to categorical imperative, since we used this technique on these prisoners, it should be acceptable for everyone to do this. Categorical imperative states that if we commit an act, we should think whether that behavior should be accepted universally. Categorical imperative is against this type of behavior because if US soldiers are torturing people, then we are basically saying that torturing is ok to be practiced universally. Andrew Moher suggests that “…there is a danger that condoning torture of suspects might harm innocents unnecessarily, or that American captives would be subjected to inhumane treatment in response to United States policy (Moher, 2004).” This statement completely agrees with categorical imperative. If the US is committing torture, then we are condoning other countries to commit torture as well. Categorical imperative suggests that we shouldn’t be committing this type of offense against humans, because it means we are giving the right to other people to commit the same exact offense. Now the utilitarian ethical concept sees torture in interrogations as justified. The utilitarian point of view sees torture in interrogations as ok because they believe that the torture of one man can be helpful for the greater good of society. If we can torture someone in an interrogation and get information out of them for a future attack on the United States then the torture is justified because we have protected the wellbeing of the society. The utilitarian ethical concept is concerned with the best interest of society, even if it means harming one person. Michael Welch talks about how there is a psychology of interrogation. Welch makes an argument for the use of torture in interrogations by saying that most people that are interrogated are guilty, or have some useful knowledge, and most likely those people are going to deny that they know anything. We use torture tactics in interrogations in order to get that information out (Welch, 2010). In this situation, the end justifies the means, or the torture in the interrogation is justified by the fact that we got useful information out of the prisoner. Another example that supports the utilitarian view is the ticking time bomb scenario. The ticking time bomb scenario says that there is a bomb planted somewhere in a populated city, and one person (in the custody of the police) knows the location of the bomb. Torture is justified in this scenario by the utilitarian view because if the person is tortured and he reveals the location of the bomb, then several lives would be saved (Davis, 2007). The utilitarian point of view suggests that it is ok to torture, as long as it prevents harm to the society. Analysis and Policy Recommendation The following is a policy that should be put in place regarding the use of torture in interrogations: Torture in interrogations should be prohibited and never used due to the fact that it causes harm to human beings, and if we practice torture tactics then others will practice torture tactics as well. I feel that the categorical imperative has the greatest impact on me for this situation. I took into account both sides of the argument. The best example that I found to support the utilitarian concept is the ticking time bomb scenario. Torture is justified in this scenario because it will save lives. On the other hand, the categorical imperative offers an example that states that if we practice torture in interrogations then we are therefore condoning torture elsewhere in the world. I wouldn’t want an American soldier to be captured and tortured, so we should show others respect and not torture them in interrogations. To me, the categorical imperative provides the strongest reason to not practice torture in interrogations. Another reason why the policy I chose follows the categorical imperative is because of the stakeholders. The people that are being tortured are the stakeholders in this situation. I believe that it is important to treat them with humanity. The stakeholders are the ones that suffer the most in this situation. The categorical imperative tells us to act humanely, and torture in interrogations is not a humane way to act. ReferencesDavis, M. (2007). Torture and the Inhumane. Criminal Justice Ethics, 26, p29-43.Horne, A. (2009). Torture – A Short History of its Prohibition. Judicial Review, p.155-169.Moher, A. (2004). The Lesser of Two Evils? An Argument for Judicially Sanctoined Torture in a Post 9/11 World. Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 26, p469-489.Pollock, J. (2012). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage.Welch, M. (2010). Illusions in Truth Seeking: The Perils of Interrogation and Torture in the War on Terror. Social Justice, 37, pp123-148. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download