Surname: Altamish Tahir

Instructor: Professor Daniel Sanders

Course: ENG COMP 2

Date: 05-04-2018

Can torture be justified?

Before we can discuss whether or not torture can be justified, we have to first look at the

definition of torture, and what constitutes torture. According to the Oxford Dictionary; torture

is defined as “The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to

force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain”.

Regardless of how it is put, torture is in no way, a pleasurable activity. the debate over whether

torture is ethical or not didn’t arise until the end of the First World War. Before then, it was

considered common practice by the governments and military in order to either acquire

information or to punish criminals. After the Second World War, the practice of torture became

a topic of discussion and its ethicality and legality came into question.

In 1984, the UN drafted an international human rights treaty aiming to prevent torture or

other means of inhumane treatment as a form of punishment. it forbade such acts, especially at

times of war as a means of justification or to claim that they were under order from a higher

chain of command.
 The argument in favour of torture

The term “Enhanced interrogation” has been coined by states in order to justify the use of

torture. These acts have been argued that they are committed in order to save lives, and

therefore is seen as a necessary evil to assure harmony. They claim that terrorists are not

signatories of the Geneva convention, and therefore do not abide by the rules of war. Their

argument is that since those whom they are fighting have no reservations about torture, and do

so freely and comfortably, then why should we be forced to abide by such rules and regulations

and have our arms tied. They also argue that these entities are not part of any state, rather

they are groups which have implanted their networks of terrorist in multiple countries with the

general civilian population.

Other proponents of the use of torture argue that the use of enhanced interrogation has

produced viable intelligence and have been crucial in preventing attacks on their country’s soil.

This argument does hold some valid points, as, during times of war, key intelligence is crucial in

either locating high profile targets or preventing impending attacks. Torture has been argued to

have been used as a deterrent for those who wish to harm the country through unconventional

means of war, such as terrorism. It can accelerate the process through which interrogation is

conducted, especially when the time is of the essence and an attack is imminent. The terrorist

groups have been known for using exceedingly ruthless techniques of torture, and by

comparison, the torture that United States government engages in is perceived to be

comparatively less bad. All in all; they assert that methods such as waterboarding do not lead to

any long-term physical damage to the detainee’s health.

Arguments in opposition to torture

Those who state that torture can never be justified, whether on ethical, moral, or legal grounds

argue that we should maintain our ethics and values and should not stoop down to their level

of inhumanity, brutality, viciousness and cold-heartedness. In their view, such acts of torture

can be used by those terrorist groups as means of propaganda to convince others to incite

terrorist attacks. Another strong argument they present is that torture is considered illegal by

the ICC and as such, we should uphold the law and not resort to such illegal acts as they are in

stanch contrast to not only our own legal system but also the legal system of the wider

international community. On numerous occasions, innocent people have been wrongfully

tortured in order to extract information from them. This has been seen as a carelessness of the

intelligence community in determining whether the captured individual has any viable

information to give or not. The results of this can be that either the detainee couldn’t give any

information as they were not in possession of any such knowledge, or that they lied just so they

would no longer had to endure the painful interrogation process.

A key argument opposing the use of enhanced interrogation is that such acts lead to

psychological ordeal not only for the detainee, but also for the torturer. This can have a long

lasting affect and would lead to other mental problems for both individual. An investigation
conducted by the US senate found that since 911, the use of enhanced interrogation has not

produced the desired results and that its success rate was quite exaggerated by the military and

the CIA. This begs the question as to the reason for such horrific acts if they neither prove

viable results, nor help in deterring those groups of people who are easily willing to lay down

their lives for their cause.

In conclusion, there is no doubt about the ethical and legal side of such methods; they are

without a doubt, inhumane, cruel, and barbaric; and if we stoop to the same level as our

enemy, then how can we claim to distinguish ourselves from them, and how are we any

different than those who care not for human lives. But looking form a consequentialist point of

view, by not resorting to such acts, we could be dealing with a greater threat as in this day of

age, wars are not fought between countries, but rather groups of ideologies; groups who are

embedded in our society and hide in plain sight waiting for the time to strike at our citizens and

other innocent people. We must use every tool at our disposal to deal with such an enemy or

our very existence could possibly be under threat.