Global Ethical Challenges: Torture - Assignment Example

Global Ethics Challenge: Torture De: What’s the frown for? Haven’t you heard that you add years to your life by smiling every so often? Deb: I am just disturbed by what governments do ostensibly to protect national interests. It’s hard to smile when reading such sobering news. De: Don’t carry the weight of the world on your shoulders. Anyway, what’s so bothering about what you are reading? Deb: Well, it says here that a guy named Abu Zubaydah, who was a prime terrorist according to the US government, was actually tortured for nothing1. The guy has no associations with Al-Qaeda or any terrorist group for that matter. Can you believe that? De: Yes I do; actually, there are probably many more who have suffered the same fate. But that does not mean that torture should be completely dismissed. Just imagine that if the guy actually knew something, the war on terror would probably have been won by now. In reality, the end justifies the means when it comes to safeguarding national security2. Deb: What?! Are you really serious? Actually, I am glad you brought this up because I hadn’t realised how uncivilised you can be. Torture is not only immoral, but it also has no place in the civilised world. Additionally, torture does not work; just read the Zubaydah story and see how his forced confessions generated false leads that cost millions to pursue3. De: Oh, really? That might be so, but still it does not mean the leads were not worth trying. Remember the war on terror does not, figuratively speaking, have a definite terrain. If Americans knew for sure where to find Osama bin Laden, they would have detained or killed him sooner. What I am trying to tell you is that every lead, despite how small, deserves to be pursued to the very end. It is better to suffer disappointment, than to realise that you could have saved thousands of tens, hundreds or even more lives by following the seemingly trivial leads. Deb: Hey, you are veering off our topic buddy. I am not denying that terrorism surveillance should be upped; I am not even trying to say that past terrorism perpetrators should go unpunished; all I am saying is that torture is an evil so profound that nothing could morally justify its use. Are we on the same wavelength now? De: I clearly understand you; but I don’t agree with you! Morality should not even be an issue of discussion here. Look, do you think the terrorists consider what is moral when they are bombing their targets? Absolutely not! When government manages to capture a suspect who may know where they operate from, then by all means, the interrogators should be allowed to use torture as a form of soliciting intelligence. Deb: I can clearly see that progressive thinking is not one of your strong points. What on earth makes you think that torture deserves any place in the modern world? As a person who advocates for things legal, you should know that apart from being immoral, torture is also illegal and a poor interrogation technique4. If governments need to get terrorism leads, they should train interrogators to perform their duties more ethically and professionally. De: Oh my! Why am I even discussing these issues with you? If you live in the same world as I, you probably know about the ticking time-bomb concept5. I guess even in such cases torture won’t be justified? Deb: No! I said no moral explanation can justify the use of torture6. De: Oh, really?! What if your father, mother, or child was in the same car in which a bomb is likely explode… if the suspect being interrogated does not reveal the car’s whereabouts. Tell me, would you still say it is immoral to torture the suspect? Deb: Don’t corner me my friend. It is highly unlikely that such a thing will happen. But even if it does, I would rather the interrogators use other means than torturing the suspect. Have you even considered that the suspect could be a case of mistaken identity? De: Yes, but so what?! It could also turn that the suspect does indeed have valuable information. Deb: I’ll ignore your latter comment and concentrate on answering the “so what” question; I bet that if you were wrongly suspected of terrorism, you would not like the profound disrespect that the tormentors would subject you to. I bet you’d be the first one shouting about the need to protect the autonomy of an individual when you (assuming that you will be of sound mind when the ordeal is finally over) eventually return to normalcy7. De: Don’t bet on it. I am a very understanding person you know? I would probably understand that my government was trying to protect the millions of other citizens at my inconvenience. Deb: Yeah right! Why don’t you just admit it? You are maintaining that torture should be used because you are probably aware that you are unlikely to get tortured in your lifetime. De: You are wrong my friend. I don’t feel safe anymore; I get the feeling that terrorism is real and the perpetrators are lurking somewhere in readiness for the opportune time to hit. All the more reasons for my position that torture should, where applicable, be used to rid the country off the terrorism threat. Maybe myself, and millions of other peace-loving citizens will sleep better when that time comes. Deb: I must admit that your self-seeking nature could take the crown if there was one. Do you realise that you are saying that just because you want to enjoy your sleep more, then people (some completely innocent) should be subjected to the worst kind of inhuman treatment? De: What’s up buddy? Do not take my words literally. Try to give me some credit for use of symbolism (laughing). By using the sleep better allegory I meant to say that we need to feel safer in our own country. This terrorism debate has been tagging on our nerves for years now. Deb: I agree that we need to feel safe. What I don’t agree is that we need to accept, condone and even at times encourage the use of torture just so we can be safer as a country. What happened to your moral inclination? I thought you had a conscious mind buddy! You disappoint me greatly! De: Never mind. Disappointment gives life some flavour; and so you know, I hold very strong moral views on some issues. Unfortunately, torture is simply not one of them. For example, I am one of the strongest believers that the US was morally right in its use of “heightened interrogation techniques” on terror suspects8. Deb: Oh really! And what forms the basis of your “strong beliefs” if I may ask? De: First, because I believe that justice needs to be served at whatever cost; secondly because I believe that war on terror needs some action rather than passive strategising; and third because the likes of you need to be told that terrorists cannot be spared because they don’t spare even the most innocent in our society. Deb: There you go again. Why are your arguments so unsubstantiated? So justice needs to be served; whose justice? Don’t the people who suffer torment have a right to justice too? So you say, we need to act in order to win the war on terror; what gives you the impression that torture is the action needed to attain such an objective? Finally, what makes you believe that every torture victim knows anything about terrorism? Do your homework buddy; you will realise that torture, as indicated earlier in the Abu Zubaydah case, does not always give the expected results; if anything, it only trounces the victim’s human rights. De: How so buddy? You are too emotional for this. Get a life! You are nowhere close to being a torture victim! Deb: Well, I’ll tell you how; did you know that some torture victims go through the worst kind of experiences; some which go beyond the physical pain inflicted by their torturers? In some cases, they are subjected to inflicting emotional and physical pain on self9. They are subjected to infantilizing, disgraceful and dehumanising situations that have lasting emotional scars10. De: How exactly? Deb: Well, we could talk about it the whole day, without exhausting the list. For example, what moral authority does a government have to subject suspects to prolonged hunger, sleep deprivation, thirst, and prolonged standing or other stress positions?11 De: Any government worth its salt will do anything to protect its people, and based on that, we can therefore argue that it has some moral ground to base its actions. Deb: Did you say anything? Or did I hear you wrong? I suppose they can invade your precious privacy as well without you complaining. Or even tell you where you can or cannot go if national security matters justify the same. De: Aren’t you mixing issues my friend? Some of the issues you mentioned concern our basic freedoms. Of course the government will respect them; as for torture, remember most of these people are not even Americans. As such they do not have the interests of the American state or people at heart. Deb: Just because they aren’t Americans does not make them any less human. The moral obligation of being ethical applies to every human being regardless of their nationality. De: Oh dear... there you go again! Just how tiring can this discussion get? You mean to say that you cannot take a hint. I am done here. Next time have a more entertaining topic buddy. Read More

De: Oh my! Why am I even discussing these issues with you? If you live in the same world as I, you probably know about the ticking time-bomb concept5. I guess even in such cases torture won’t be justified? Deb: No! I said no moral explanation can justify the use of torture6. De: Oh, really?! What if your father, mother, or child was in the same car in which a bomb is likely explode… if the suspect being interrogated does not reveal the car’s whereabouts. Tell me, would you still say it is immoral to torture the suspect?

Deb: Don’t corner me my friend. It is highly unlikely that such a thing will happen. But even if it does, I would rather the interrogators use other means than torturing the suspect. Have you even considered that the suspect could be a case of mistaken identity? De: Yes, but so what?! It could also turn that the suspect does indeed have valuable information. Deb: I’ll ignore your latter comment and concentrate on answering the “so what” question; I bet that if you were wrongly suspected of terrorism, you would not like the profound disrespect that the tormentors would subject you to.

I bet you’d be the first one shouting about the need to protect the autonomy of an individual when you (assuming that you will be of sound mind when the ordeal is finally over) eventually return to normalcy7. De: Don’t bet on it. I am a very understanding person you know? I would probably understand that my government was trying to protect the millions of other citizens at my inconvenience. Deb: Yeah right! Why don’t you just admit it? You are maintaining that torture should be used because you are probably aware that you are unlikely to get tortured in your lifetime.

De: You are wrong my friend. I don’t feel safe anymore; I get the feeling that terrorism is real and the perpetrators are lurking somewhere in readiness for the opportune time to hit. All the more reasons for my position that torture should, where applicable, be used to rid the country off the terrorism threat. Maybe myself, and millions of other peace-loving citizens will sleep better when that time comes. Deb: I must admit that your self-seeking nature could take the crown if there was one.

Do you realise that you are saying that just because you want to enjoy your sleep more, then people (some completely innocent) should be subjected to the worst kind of inhuman treatment? De: What’s up buddy? Do not take my words literally. Try to give me some credit for use of symbolism (laughing). By using the sleep better allegory I meant to say that we need to feel safer in our own country. This terrorism debate has been tagging on our nerves for years now. Deb: I agree that we need to feel safe.

What I don’t agree is that we need to accept, condone and even at times encourage the use of torture just so we can be safer as a country. What happened to your moral inclination? I thought you had a conscious mind buddy! You disappoint me greatly! De: Never mind. Disappointment gives life some flavour; and so you know, I hold very strong moral views on some issues. Unfortunately, torture is simply not one of them. For example, I am one of the strongest believers that the US was morally right in its use of “heightened interrogation techniques” on terror suspects8.

Deb: Oh really! And what forms the basis of your “strong beliefs” if I may ask? De: First, because I believe that justice needs to be served at whatever cost; secondly because I believe that war on terror needs some action rather than passive strategising; and third because the likes of you need to be told that terrorists cannot be spared because they don’t spare even the most innocent in our society. Deb: There you go again. Why are your arguments so unsubstantiated? So justice needs to be served; whose justice?

Don’t the people who suffer torment have a right to justice too? So you say, we need to act in order to win the war on terror; what gives you the impression that torture is the action needed to attain such an objective?

Read More