Necessity of Torture for Terrorists in Australia - Case Study Example

Necessity of torture in Australia (Institution) (Name) (Course) (Module) (Instructor) September 15 2009 Since the September 11 terrorist attack in the US, the definition of terrorism has taken a new direction. Terrorism has been met with more vengeance than ever. The ensuing war against terrorism has had a tremendous effect on the global political power balance and social lives of many. The war mainly waged in the Middle East has cost the America and her allies billions of dollars and thousands of troop’s life. In the process a number of terrorist suspects have been arrested. Their die hard attitude has seen them refuse to cooperate with forces leading to ardent questions on whether information should be forcefully extracted from them. This is where the thin line between torture and questioning comes in. On the other hand, human rights and freedoms are against forceful extraction of information and arbitrary arrests brought about by terrorism fears that have characterised all nations. International borders and airports have been made tighter, scrutiny of immigrants more intense and many other aspects. If only the masterminds could be capped at their roots, the world would be at peace. Therefore does the achievement of global peace and security justify the means? Yes. The accumulative cost of the war on terror is enormous and still counting. The social impact of terrorism will not subside for centuries to come. In order to deter terrorism and avert ensuing counter-terrorism wars, it is paramount that the perpetrators be tortured either as punishment or to extract information necessary to curb terrorism. This essay discusses why torture is a necessary punishment for terrorists and people associated with terrorists. A number of theories have been developed by different sociologists, thinkers and philosophers on the issue of terrorism and torture more so after the September 11 attack. The US government has been the main culprit accused of torturing terror suspects. The existing literature and theories either support or disapprove the actions of the US government and many other countries united in fighting terrorism. As a consequence, governments have also been divided on the same issue and even international alliances forged in the fight against terrorism. However, in this war against terrorism, how are the suspects tried? Do they deserve to be treated as ordinary criminals? The Australian (June 15 2009) reports that terror suspects in the US have been allowed to sue for torture. What does torture entail we may ask? A general agreement among the various version of definitions say that it is the infliction of severe pain or distress to coerce someone to reveal or say something. Closely related to this is forceful extraction of information or evidence or going by more humanitarian terms data mining. The UN Convention on Torture as stated in Boulesbaa (1999, p. 37) defines torture in a broad way as; Any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or anguish This definition has been criticized as being loose and full of loopholes that allow nations around the world to twist it to fit their actions negating torture. Boulesbaa (1999), notes that the UN definition of torture does only revolve around governments and not individuals hence making it inadequate. However, Levin (web) sees this contortion of the definition as not necessary. He (Levin, n.d.) says that “There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory. Moreover, these situations are moving from the realm of imagination to fact.” He goes further and gives an example of terrorist situation where one man has hidden ticking bomb in an island full of people and threatens detonating if his demands are not met commonly known as the ticking bomb theory. Assuming the man is arrested before the bomb detonates and refuses to reveal the location of the bomb which will detonate automatically in any case, then any form of coercion and torture or even death according to Levin (n.d.) is necessary to make the terrorist reveal the location to avert the death of many people. This kind of reasoning has been used in many instances while those against torture view that the state has no right to infringe on personal rights as described by various statutes. In their book War, Torture and Terrorism: Rethinking the Rules of International Security, Lang and Beattie (2008) Henry Shue’s 1978 essay on torture that claimed that many governments, both democratic and tyrant ones, were using torture as a basic survival tool. As a tool for survival, then torture is necessary for government and individuals therefore, if it increases chances of survival by minimizing or eliminating potential danger. Levin’s view of the necessity of torture as explained by the ticking bomb theory has been used by many proponents of torture. While this may be viewed to be a logical perspective to a simple problem, the same proponents have supported their view from a legal perspective using the same theory. Sung (2005.) quotes Dershowitz who argues that the United States federal Constitution does not succinctly forbid torturing the ticking bomb terrorist. A closer look at the US constitution reveals that immunity from incrimination for such a suspect would imply that the Fifth Amendment applies in that it prohibits self-incrimination where else the information obtained from the suspect will not be used as evidence during prosecution (Sung, 2005). Differences in security apparatus in the US and Australia point at varied tactics these two allies use to handle the same threat and accusations. The Australian law on terrorism, according to Amnesty International, is incompatible with international law. This is because the Australian constitution in response to terrorism allows “pre-charge detention for terrorism suspects” Jeremy Betham also developed the utilitarian theory to back the ticking bomb theory in supporting torture to terrorists and persons linked to terrorism (Sung 2005). This theory is basically based on the economic concept of utility which Sung explains as the level of satisfaction obtained from consuming or making use of something which by extension assumes that consuming more makes one more satisfied. In this context, the one terror suspect being tortured, assuming his comfort is foregone delivers a lot more benefit than sparing his comfort. Again by extension, torturing all terrorist in order to reveal crucial information would lead to greater peace, security and even more lives being saved. By proposing this theory, Bentahm according to Sung (2005) proposed non-lethal torture while current most modern government are accused of extreme torturing and even resultant death. Levin (n.d.) introduces another perspective to the discussion in support of torture. He says that torture is not a form of punishment in itself but a preventative measure to crime and death, read terrorism. The contemporary and constitutionally accepted forms of punishment to offenders are vengeful and do not seek to prevent further occurrences of such. He compares this to the debate in capital punishments where its proponents argue that once a criminal is eliminated, his chances of ever committing crime are zero. Opponents of this debate on the other hand argue that executing a criminal is wrong as it will not bring him back. From a historical point of view, the law was enacted to guide people and punish the law breakers but not bend the law to wait for the law breakers to reform. By torturing a terror suspect, the extrinsic value of the act according to Levin (n.d.) is more important than the intrinsic value of the pain endured as it saves life. This implies that life is more important the pain endured by an individual for a crime committed. Another theory often overlooked in consequentialism. This theory is widely related to utilitarianism though it is most applicable at a personal level. To a consequentialist nothing is intrinsically wrong or right but its consequences determine whether it is wrong or right (Allhoff, 2008). Therefore, this means that for person torturing terrorist, the act is not wrong as the consequences are right and hence the act of torture is made right too. On the other hand, if the consequences of the torture act are wrong, then the act is deemed wrong. This theory thus supports torture on one hand and maybe used too to argue against torture. For instance, opponents of torture ma argue that the victim may die or end up depressed or traumatized which is wrong thus deeming torture wrong. Nevertheless, a failure to torture a suspect to obtain information that would have meant saving humanity in case of a pending terror attack implies that failure to apply torture is wrong (Burgess-Jackson, 2007). Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology is heavily quoted by opponents of torture. He encompasses his theory on the tenets of “‘categorical imperative’ (that thing which commands free and reasonable creatures unconditionally, at all times and places)” that should apply to all humanity (Caseebeer, 2003). This theory revolves around the intrinsic value of humanity as an end to itself rather than a means to something else. By torturing a suspect to obtain information or evidence, then this theory defines this act as using the person as a means to something bigger or more valuable, in this case information. However, Kant’s theory of treating humans according to their intrinsic value faces many challenges from empirical cases more so in the workplace. Casebeer (2003) argues against this theory by saying that humans are valued by society by what they have achieved or their potential such as in the workplace where pay and job position are determined by our potential as a means to something better for the employer. Therefore, it would be impossible to appreciate the intrinsic value of a terror suspect not withstanding potentially helpful information he/she is withholding. The law on torture from a deontological perspective calls for the approval of the suspect of torture to be tortured which is not possible. Again, torture infringes on human rights. However, it is the right of the public not to be killed by the terrorist. This goes back to the ticking bomb theory which emphasizes on the importance of sacrificing one being to save many. The law and the various theories discussed except for the ticking bomb theory can be manipulated to fit either side of the debate. The reason why this debate has drawn so much attention is largely blamed on the media. However, I tend to disagree given the fact the recent occurrences in terrorism are not the first to be associated with torture. The UN began discussion of torture as early as the 1950 and yet still the discussion exists. As Australia becomes more conscious of her vulnerability as a multicultural nation, more national security bodies with even more powers will be established and the debate on torture will still remain. On the overall, torture remains as one of the strongest tools of fighting terrorism and hence should be upheld. Though widely denied by governments, information relating to terror activities has been mostly obtained through coercion and torture. References Allhoff, F. 2008. Terrorism and Torture, (Online). Available: www.wmich.edu/philosophy/allhoff-cv.pdf Amnesty International, Australia human rights report 2009. (Online). Available: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/australia/report-2009 Boulesbaa, A. 1999, The U.N. Convention on Torture and the prospects for enforcement Volume 51 of International studies in human rights. Geneva: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Burgess-Jackson, K. 2007. The Logic of Torture Why the subject of torture provokes so much yelling and so little argumentation, Wall Street Journal, Dec 5 2007, (Online). Available: http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010945 Casebeer, W. 2003. Torture Interrogation of Terrorists: A Theory of Exceptions, (Online). Available: http://www.usafa.edu/isme/JSCOPE03/Casebeer03.html Jaggers, B. & Law and Bills Digests, 2008. Section Anti-terrorism control orders in Australia and the United Kingdom: a comparison, Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services, (Online). Available: www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2007-08/08rp28.pdf Lang, A. & Beattie, A. 2008. War, Torture and Terrorism: Rethinking the Rules of International Security, London: Taylor & Francis Levin, M. (n.d.) The case for torture, (Online). Available: http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/torture.html Terrorist allowed to sue for torture, The Australian, June 15, 2009, (Online). Available: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25635163-5018491,00.html Slawski, C. Torture and secrecy vs. democracy and peace development, (Online). Available: journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings50th/article/view/414/125 Sung, S. 2005. Torturing the ticking bomb terrorist: an analysis of judicially sanctioned torture in the context of terrorism, (Online). Available: http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/23_1/05_FMS.htm Read More