The Ticking Time Bomb - Term Paper Example

The Ticking Time Bomb Introduction The world we live in is characterized by actions that can either be characterized as good or evil. However, the most common trait between these two actions that best define the human race can never be substantiated. As such, the world opts to live on the premise that when an individual performs good deeds then subsequently good deeds should be their reward. However, because of the dynamics that characterizes each person’s actions, this positive reward may not, and often is not the reward. The human race is a distinct species; this is with regards to envisaging its future actions. As such, it will be engaging in conjectures without content if this paper states that good will always persist. With the aim of producing an unbiased paper, these baseless conceptions shall not be propagated within the confines of this paper. In some situations, it is requisite to entertain evil deeds for the benefit of the greater good. This entails willfully inflicting pain on certain individuals, terrorism suspects, so as to maintain peace and harmony of the greater society. However, a problem arises when an attempt is made on what greater good justifies the use of evil or bad deeds on a fellow human being. One such deed is the use of torture on fellow human beings so as to benefit the greater human race. This paper endeavors to expound on whether torture can be justified in situations exemplified by a ticking time bomb. A variety of literal works have been put forward that embark on either support or oppose the notion that torture can in some situations be justified. This paper will analyze the understandings of one proponent of torture, Professor Alan Dershowitz. Additionally, the conclusions of the Landau commission will also be explicated. Analysis In Professor Alan Dershowitz’s article in the Darmer text, he goes to great lengths to expound on why terrorism has been successful thus far (Darmer et al, p. 188-89) .He proceeds to give remedies to this escalating situation. However, he insists that there be a well defined line between matters regarding national security and civil liberties. The relevant authorities should no be so preoccupied by their desire to maintain national security to the extent that they impinge on the civil liberties of the suspected terrorist. Professor Dershowitz explicates on the vitality of torture with regards to sustenance of the human race, more precisely, the society. He contends that the society, in regards to terrorism, cannot be expected to have its cake and eat it too. In between the lines, Dershowitz raises an assortment of questions, both in the legal and moral context, as to how effective the society will be able to deter random acts of terrorism while, still judiciously perpetuating essential values relating to both the liberty and privacy of man (Darmer et al, p. 192-94). Professor Dershowitz is of the opinion that the route adopted by the police, in combating perpetrators of terrorism is inappropriate. This is because these individuals are most often rational thinkers who engage in these heinous acts so as to draw attention towards them. Therefore, the police are basically aiding them to achieve their life’s goals.Per se, a different itinerary should be espoused by the police if terrorism is to be effectively combated. In this context, professor Dershowitz is offering the understanding that punishing these perpetrators will ultimately deter a significant number of terrorism events. As such, this provides an alternative action to be employed in similar situations, as it also upholds the civil liberties of all persons; as should be the case in every democratic society. This juncture culminates into one of the most controversial proposals attributed to Dershowitz. This is the use of torture that has been judicially sanctioned. However, he substantiates the specific instances that this mechanism can be employed on a suspect. He gives a caution that torture is not an act that is applied to just any suspect, but rather on a suspect possessing information that could save a significant number of the populace. This, specific, situation is famously known as the ticking time bomb scenario. When this situation is simplified further, it simply defines a situation where the suspect has, within their knowledge, information that will avert an imminent and massive terrorist event. Dershowitz further states that law enforcement officials should then be permitted to torture the suspect after first obtaining a judicial warrant. Professor Dershowitz then states that since law enforcement officers will have to first obtain judicial accord then the scenarios that climax with torture will inevitably reduce. This is owed to the fact that before the courts warrant the use of torture on a suspected terrorist, proper mediation, on the case at hand, will have to be conducted. Investigations that conclusively prove that the suspect has the required information have to e made. As such, the cases whereby the law enforcement officials will be permitted into use torture will be at the prerogative of the courts. The rigorous debate on torture has run across the international scene for more than a century. Various groupings have sprung up that either seeks to justify its use while others seek to condemn it. One proponent of torture who lived in the seventeenth century is Francis Bacon, a renowned English scholar. This scholar reasoned that, it is only via the practice of torture can one be sure of obtaining the veracity of the matter under investigation. According to Bacon, it is only in truth that the essence of justice can be preserved. Francis bacon propels the notion that, torture can be justified if it leads to gaining of vital information that can avert an imminent terrorist attack; even if gaining this information will be at the detriment of human liberty and presumably human life. Aside from Francis Bacon, the philosopher Jeremy Bentham adds his support as to why the use of torture is justified. He justifies this by conjuring up a principle he named the principle of utility. This utilitarian principle endeavors to maximize on the total good of the society, its happiness or pleasure. Simply put, achieving the total good of the society should be awarded utmost priority over the good of a single individual. According to Bentham, inflicting non-lethal pain on a single individual as a tool of coercing the suspect to reveal important information is permissible, since this is done with the good of the society in mind. This is in line with the perceptions forwarded by professor Alan Dershowitz, who, through his article, shows support for Bentham. Though, he adds that restraint should be practiced via judicial approval. Critics of torture argue that willingly inflicting pain on a fellow human being, is acting in complete disregard of the basic human rights that society has vigorously fought to uphold (Richard Pierre Claude, p. 59). This simple act would be undermining the basic rights that constitute the foundation of the society. Nonetheless, this assumption paves way for proponents to refute these claims and brand them as pure hogwash. It is the epitome of obliviousness to treat the suspected perpetrators of terrorism acts as human. It should be understood that once these individuals choose to partake in heinous crimes against humanity they, there and then, cease to be treated as human beings. No human being, in their right mind, can simply opt to destroy the human race so as to propel daft ideologies fashioned to benefit a few individuals at the greater expense of the society. This perception is similar to the one propagated by Professor Alan Dershowitz. He cites that the constitution does not protect the said individuals from harsh treatment by law enforcement officials. He is also of the perception that the Fifth Amendment does not hold for the suspect since he or she has not yet been convicted of the crime. On further evaluation of this perception, one cannot fail to note that, aside from the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments bar the use of torture. However, on closer analysis, these amendments do not bar the use of torture particularly in a ticking bomb situation. The core justification embraced by proponents is the legal defense provided for necessity. The defense of necessity is a situation whereby the society permits an individual to act outside the constraints of the law when in a dire situation requiring the individual to opt whether to, violate the law or prevent a greater human destruction. The justification of this law of necessity is sourced from the premise that, it is permissible to preclude a greater wrong by committing a lesser wrong. As such, various organizations and nations have resulted to the frequent use of torture in the mind that they are committing a lesser wrong while averting a greater wrong. However, there exists no clear definition on what must be regarded as the greater good. Since there is no mode of classifying the extent of harm that can be considered as the greater good, there is bound to arise some scenarios where this right to torture a suspect is misused. This eventuality can best be exemplified by the Israeli commission of 1987; the Landau Commission. Though, the Landau Commission opts to justify the use of torturous means by citing the defense of necessity, it is arguable that they are exceeding the permissible criteria for engaging in torture. The Israeli General Security Service (GSS) is renowned for its easy go merry attitude regarding the use of torture on suspects of terrorism and particularly the Palestine’s. So much was the criticism of this attitude that they were forced to set up a commission to investigate these claims. However, rather than condemn the General Security Service (GSS), the Landau Commission chose to justify the actions of the security agency by citing the defense of necessity. All through the entirety of the article, Professor Alan Dershowitz strives to give the justifications of the use of torture. He additionally cites that for society to secure its future, it needs to embrace the use of torture. In the absence of which, tyranny and evil will reign over the human race. Dershowitz asserts that since it is imperative that law enforcement officers use torture, society can either opt to turn a blind eye to its usage or incorporate it into the legal system. The latter is obviously the best stance to take as it incorporates accountability into sessions of interrogation. Dershowitz explicitly states that the due process standard of fifth and eight amendments strictly prohibit the torturing of suspects, on the basis that it impedes on the basic right of human dignity. However, Dershowitz fails to take into consideration the simple fact that due process is culmination of two rights, that is right to fair notice and substantive right to life, property and liberty (Richard Pierre Claude, p. 43).Thus, even though the terrorist is tortured in accordance to the procedural fairness, they are still protected within the confines of the substantive due process. Dershowitz cites only part of the due process as such his assertions are biased and ill informed. However, further analysis of the works attributed to Dershowitz proves that he is also aware of the implications his proposals will have on the international scene. An example of the United States of America is given. In a scenario where it decides to include the use of torture in its constitution, then by relation then the whole world will in time establish amendments to their constitution to include the legality of torture. The United States has always been highly critical of harsh treatment of its citizens while abroad. This will not be the case once they implement amendments that will permit the international use of torture. The united states will be forced to accept a new reality whereby, its citizens are now prone to receiving interrogations that are characterized by torture (Dershowitz, p. 21). Predictably this will not sit well with their government and such an element of is a matter of extensive debate. The veracity of the matter is that the implications of introducing such legislation is far reaching, an extent that has not been covered by Professor Dershowitz. This omission may either be willfully or ignorantly made. However, putting in mind that professor Alan Dershowitz is a renowned scholar; it is highly improbable that the omission has emanated from inexperience on the matter. As such, the only remaining option is that the omission has been made willfully. It is perplexing to note that Dershowitz did not regard such implications with its due concern. It, therefore, can be substantiated that Dershowitz’s lengthy elaboration, on the issue at hand, is biased as it is only one sided. One of the more prolific critics of torture has to be none other than Francis Marie Arouet, who is most commonly referred to as Voltaire. His fame is sourced from his outspoken stance on civil liberties and more so torture. In complete contrast to the stances adopted by professor Dershowitz, Voltaire is largely credited with the traditional resistance of torture by the western society. Professor Dershowitz brands these traditional views as ill informed, and suited for a society that does not live in constant fear of random acts of terrorism. Voltaire bravely spoke and subsequently wrote extensively about the evil associated with torturing of fellow human beings. His early enlightenment of the cruelty and unusual punishments existing within the confines of the constitution of the United States was pivotal in abolishing, that is partially, the practice of torture by law enforcement officials. However, torture was with time abolished from the mainstream discourses of the western societies. When the comments by Professor Alan Dershowitz concerning Voltaire, are analyzed one cannot help but notice that these two philosophers cannot be more different. Each of them gives logical backing in support of their assertions. While Voltaire believes that human dignity should be upheld every time and it should not be disregarded at any cost. He famously cites the barbarity of torture as a major reason that it should not be undertaken. However, professor Dershowitz cites that it is only when the society embraces torture of suspected terrorists, will it be sure of its future. He states that only when a terrorist is tortured will they give true information. When law enforcement officials are given the permission to torture their captives, it is bound to be used inappropriately and in excess (Clucas et al, p. 76). This was exactly the case in Israel when two Palestinian prisoners died at the hands of their interrogators. The scandal that ensued necessitated the setting up of a commission to investigate the conduct of the GSS with regards to claims of torture. The commission that was set up was the Landau Commission. Its mandated task was to investigate the allegations of ill treatment of Palestine captives by Israeli security agency (Dershowitz, p. 16). Right from the start the commission set out to justify the actions of its security forces. It was thus therefore anticipated that the Landau Commission chose to give backings as to the use of torture in the scenario of the ticking time bomb. The Commission fashioned three ways to deal with scenarios necessitating the use of torture mechanisms; the first being that, since the Palestine’s have a predisposition to terrorism, then they have no civil liberty rights. Secondly, the Commission stated that the Israeli security agency GSS has acted and continues to act morally and responsibly. It behaves this way with regards to discharging its mandated tasks of mainly maintaining Israeli national security. Lastly, the landau commissions stated that the modes used by the officers attached to the GSS cannot be classified as torture. This provided an avenue via which the Israeli security forces engaged in torture while at the same instance denied any involvement in this act. This was made plausible by renaming torture and assigning it a more subtle name; moderate physical pressure. Just like professor Dershowitz, the council asserted that it is only when coercion is employed will the truth be revealed. However, the commission proposed the setting up of guidelines that are to be adhered to, in the context of the case at hand. Limited forms of pressure are available to security agents but at specific instances that have to be determined with regard to the extent of each case. Uniquely, the commission propagated the notion that in order for interrogation sessions to be effective, then the boundaries set up to control cases of torture must be followed to the letter. It is only in such a situation, will the line dividing the civil rights of a human being and the need to maintain security of the society be maintained as humanly possible. After analysis of the concepts asserted by professor Dershowitz, it is clear that the professor wants the world to adopt the perception that, there exists no subtle mechanism that can be employed in the effective fight against terrorism. It is not debatable that, the world should not be complacent with traditional modes of interrogation when dealing with terrorism. However, does this mean that there exists no other mechanism that can achieve the desired results other than torture? The fact that theorists and philosophers have routinely justified their campaign, for inclusion of torture in interrogation sessions, on the basis that the human rights of a single individual should not be pitched against the human rights accorded to thousands, is an extremely persuasive emotional argument. The power of this argument cannot be down played. This stems from the fact that, it has the power to portray those opposing the use of torture, as an unrealistic lot who down play the value of the thousands of innocent lives at stake. Furthermore, proponents of torture cite that the risks to a single individual should no the accorded higher regard as to the importance of national security. One of the most notable incidences of torture in the modern era is the one practiced by law enforcement officials at the Guantanamo bay. The United States government has been the most prolific in the fight against terrorism. As such, it is not astonishing that the US is one of the nations that mostly use extreme interrogation mechanisms on its detainees. Rather than denounce these unethical practices, the United States government has opted to defend itself by propagating notions that it uses enhanced interrogation techniques that cannot be taken in the confines of torture. So prejudicial is the US government that, it destroyed alleged evidence showcasing the CIA using torture against detainees in Guantanamo Bay. This is a rather clever strategy since, by denying any involvement in torture, the state prevents any discussion on the matter and subsequently it evades culpability. This action fashions avail behind which the torturers can hide and continue in their merciless escapades. Professor Dershowitz has over the years propagated the notion that, in the context of torture, the ends justifies the means. According to the professor, torture is a morally justifiable means to gaining the truth if the odds are particularly high enough. But, exactly high enough should the odds be? This absence of a clear mechanism to gauge the odds will, and is the avenue used by those misusing this freedom. Proponents and more specifically, professor Dershowitz are acting in complete oblivion of the human cost that accompanies torture and the term damage to society once it is encouraged to turn a blind eye to acts of torture. At this juncture the question still remains whether or not professor Dershowitz and his lot are proposing the best avenue to be employed in the global fight against this global fight against terrorism. Both in law and principle torture is wrong. This assertion is justified as it has been accepted by nations around the globe. One of the core rights every individual in the world should have, unless proven otherwise, is right of freedom. Well, torturing an individual is limiting or refusing to honor the rights of the said individual. This is via ignoring the right of choice and liberty of the victim. Torture further subjugates both the physical and emotional well being of the victim, to a set of violations and humiliation. Lessons sourced from history are clear that allowing torture in one single incidence paves way for its use in the international scene. As such, the resultant effect is the lowering of the quality of adherence to human rights associated with the said state. No state exemplifies this lesson more prominently than Israel. The Landau Commission recommended that Israeli security forces be permitted to use moderate physical pressure during their interrogation sessions. As expected the Israeli government implemented these recommendations to the letter. Thus, its security forces were given the liberty to use torture with the legal backing of defense of necessity. As predicted, approximately twelve years later the Israeli government found out the hard way that its benefits far outweigh its negative impact. Consequently, the Israeli Supreme Court instigated the move to outlaw this heinous practice. This action by the Supreme Court further provides ground to question the efficacy of torture in interrogation sessions. In this regard, this paper reiterates the views propagated by Voltaire. In the eighteenth century, torture was widely frowned upon and as a result was almost non-existent on the legal front. The efficacy of torture is further questioned once tactics of the world war two are analyzed (Sherman, 2010). An American commander had instructed, in fact commanded, his POWs to go to all lengths to resist torture, but when overwhelmed they should result to deceit and propaganda. How sure can the world be of the verity of the information given by the detainees in the face of torture. To prove this fact, the study of psychology is employed. Psychological research explicates that under extreme pain the capacity to think rationally is severely impeded (Suedfeld, 1990). Repeated blows to the head negatively impacts memory and concentration. All these factors combined diminish the ability to accurately react to interrogation sessions. Thus, when these findings are put in the argument, subsequently the validity of the information given in the interrogation session is thrust into doubt. Conclusion Professor Dershowitz believes that since torture is being employed behind the scenes, to deny its use is simply being hypocritical and provides a leeway for them to go unconstrained. Consequently, Dershowitz reiterates that the existence of torture warrants will introduce regulation into interrogation sessions and subsequently accountability. He asserts that the respective state will abide by the courts decision on whether to torture or not. However, is there any way of knowing that the said state will ultimately abide by the ruling? Dershowitz is oblivious of the fact that torture will persist irrespective of the judicial decision that has been made. Once torture is legalized, then the decision to torture a suspect will be left at the prerogative of the concerned security official. Society should take heed of the lessons of history and adhere to the teachings attributed to Voltaire and condemn torture. The verity of the matter is that once torture is institutionalized, then society is putting decades of progress at the risk of decay. References Clucas, Bev, Gerry Johnstone, and Tony Ward. Torture: Moral Absolutes and Ambiguities. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2009. Print. Darmer, M K. B, Robert M. Baird, and Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Civil Liberties Vs. National Security in a Post-9/11 World. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 2004. Print. Dershowitz, Alan M. The Case for Israel. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2003. Print. Dershowitz, Alan M. Is There a Right to Remain Silent?: Coercive Interrogation and the Fifth Amendment After 9/11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Miller, Debra A. Torture. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Print. Suedfeld, Peter. Psychology and Torture. New York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp, 1990. Print. Read More