Torture as a Legitimate Counter-Terror Strategy and Its Implications - Essay Example

Torture as a legitimate counter-terror strategy and its implications Introduction Over the years, the human cost of terrorism has been experienced in nearly every society around the world, given the high permeation of systems and technologies as well as the integration of locations in the age of globalization. The war on terror is indeed a prerogative for the global community, particularly due to terrorism’s individual as well as collective costs to human beings and systems of life around the world (UNCHR 2008, p.1). The individual costs of terrorism comprise of the real and direct impact on the rights of humans, particularly its inevitable adverse consequences to the rights to life, liberty, as well as the physical integrity of victims. The collective costs of terrorism include its destabilization of governments, civil societies, peace and security as well as its threat to socio-economic development of the affected zones and the entire global society; these collective costs also undermine the stability of human rights. Given that individuals are entitled to security as a fundamental human right and governments are obligated to assure the security of their citizenry, states around the world have consequently adopted significant measures to safeguard their nationals against the insecurity threat posed by terrorism (Piazza & Walsh 2010, p.407). Nonetheless, developments in the recent past including the pervasiveness of global terrorism and the fast changing nature and scope of terrorism have compelled governments to adopt stringent measures as counter-terrorism strategies, consequently undermining human rights and the rule of law (Foot 2007, p.489). Most if not all states are increasingly resorting to the use of torture and other ill-treatment as their counter-terrorism strategy while disregarding the legal institutional safeguards designed to prevent torture. Similarly, other states have undermined the global commitment to avoidance of torture and handed over terror suspects to the countries where they are highly susceptible to torture as well as other human rights abuses. The fight against global terrorism has been mired with both pro and anti-torture arguments all over the world, with the opponents of the use of torture as a counter-terrorism strategy claiming that such an approach is counterproductive since it undermines the rule of law, good governance and human rights. In that reservists have often argued that the war on terror should be tampered with respect for human rights as well as the rule of law respectively, through the establishment of counter-terrorism strategies that both protect and promote human rights and the rule of law (Palti 2005, p.27). Recalling the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s sentiments, the global response to terrorism and efforts to thwart it should uphold the human rights that are normally undermined by terrorism since respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, as well as the rule of law are the most crucial tools in the fight against terrorism rather than privileges that can be given up at will whenever tension erupts. This paper will discuss the arguments justifying the use of torture as a legitimate counter-terror strategy and the implications of legitimizing state-sponsored programmes of torture in the fight against terrorism accordingly. Case for torture as a counter-terrorism strategy As noted earlier, torture as a counter-terrorism strategy is largely questionable and states like the U.S and its allies, which have endorsed its use in the battle against terrorism, have often been charged with violation of human rights and the universal application of law. However, in as much as the use of torture as a counter-terrorism strategy has often been challenged, it still remains one of the most prominent examples of legitimized state-sponsored programmes of torture in the war against terror. For instance, numerous human rights organizations have gathered sufficient evidence of the use of interrogational torture at the Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Air Base as well as the Abu Ghraib as a technique for questioning prisoners. Interrogational sessions at these facilities were notorious for the use of tactics that are tantamount to torture including treatments such as water boarding, deprivation of basics, exposure to extreme temperatures, as well as sexual degradation, among other forms of ill-treatments. The ubiquitous and regularized application of torture in these facilities depicts torture as a strategic tool in the interrogation exercise, despite numerous reservations from several quarters of the global society, since extracting intelligence from terror suspects is crucial in the fight against terrorism. In that respect, the need for valuable intelligence in the war on terror often constitutes sufficient grounds for the justification of objectionable ways of obtaining outcomes such as torture; consequently, this has seen the emergence of numerous arguments in support of torture as a counter-terrorism strategy over the years. Pro-torture counter-terrorism arguments The leading motivation for and ground for the legitimization of torture as an interrogatory tool is that it is the single most effective way of abstracting vital life-saving information from terror suspects who can never be broken without the use of ill-treatment and torture, especially in emergencies. Pro-torture arguments have incessantly claimed that torture should be legalized in certain situations when it is necessary to abstract vital information from terror suspects to avert terrorism and its high cost of human life on innocent civilians. However, this argument is largely flawed since it assumes that no other methods of interrogation can be as effective as torture, and that torture really works; similarly, empirical evidences have increasingly discredited this argument by establishing that legal interrogation techniques are in fact much more effective in abstracting information from terrorists. Furthermore, empirical studies have also shown that torture is not entirely reliable in abstracting information from terror suspects since it often generates misleading confessions for the purpose of stopping the ill-treatment (Blakeley 2007, p.376). In that respect, the argument for torture as the single most effective way of abstracting life-saving information from terror suspects does not hold true entirely since the legal ways of doing so have proved even more effective while the validity of information abstracted through torture has remained to be largely questionable. From a deontological perspective, torture is wrong at so many levels because it is cruel, violent, as well as degrading to human dignity and rights; however, some critics have proposed that since other forms of violence in isolated contexts have been justified, despite being equally cruel and degrading, then torture too can be justified in some cases. For instance, this argument draws on examples such as the justification of killing in combat for the purpose of self-defence as basis for their proposition, that torture too can be legitimized under such circumstances of self-defence. In as much as this argument sounds legitimate in whole, it is flawed since it assumes a correlation between tortures to killing in self-defence, and relies on the justification of one form of violence to argue for the justification of another. Unlike in the case of killing for self-defence in combat, where there is a direct threat to life and a clear survival motive to justify killing, torture of defenceless victims in detention cells has no grounds since the victim does not pose any immediate threat to the torturer. In that respect, the argument for torture of defenceless victims cannot be justified by the justification for self-defence under any circumstances because it entails a symmetric power-relation between a torturer and a victim. The consequentialist argument for the justification of torture in the war against terrorism holds that the use of torture is justified in exceptional situations when the positive consequences of its usage are weightier than the negative implications. In that essence, the consequentialist argument follows a simple cost-benefits analysis criterion that torture is justified when it is the lesser of two great evils and when its use is aimed at dodging the greater evil. The hypothetical ticking bomb scenario nearly provides sufficient ground for justification of the lesser evil (torture) in avoidance of the greater evil (killing of unspecified number of victims by the ticking bomb if it is not located promptly). Precisely, the hypothetical ticking bomb phenomenon does underscore the conclusion that torture is justifiable since when it is used in the avoidance of a terror threat to the lives of innocent civilians, the protected interests outweigh the violated ones (Wolfendale 2006, p.269). However, the argument that torture and other forms of ill-treatment can be applied effectively to abstract vital information that could potentially avert a terrorist attack from terror suspects has been mired with a lot of controversy even though it does sound legal since it does nuance aspects of necessity defence. The necessity defence argument draws inspiration from the utilitarian perspective of justifying the means by the ends and acting out the lesser of two evils for the greater good of the wider society; in that respect, the necessity defence argument proposes the excuse of torture if it does lead to the avoidance of greater harm to human life. Similarly, Gardner’s negative complicity theory reiterates the necessity defence argument in the justification of torture as an anti-terror strategy by arguing that torture in the hypothetical ticking bomb scenario is not only justifiable but also a moral obligation. The negative complicity theory proposes that since failure to do fewer wrongs to avert many wrongs is equal to complicity in the many wrongs, one must commit the lesser evil when confronted with a situation of two evils, to avert the risk of the greater evil. In that respect, if by committing a few evils an individual does help in the aversion of plenty other way much greater evils, it is imperative that the individual commits the few lesser evils rather than become complicit in the many greater evils by doing nothing at all to avert them. Similarly, given that the prevention of terror attacks always bears a dimension of urgency, the use of torture seems justifiable under the grounds that the interrogators do not usually have much time to use legal interrogation mechanisms of abstracting information (Williams 2005, p.22). The ticking time bomb nuances the urgency of terror prevention as the longer it takes to obtain information the more imminent the threat to life becomes, thus, the use of torture presents a quicker way of obtaining the life-saving information. To the effect of averting a possible eminent threat to the lives of many innocent civilians by obtaining the crucial information that is needed to do so from a terror suspect, the use of torture would appear justifiable indeed. However, the necessity defence argument is criticised for its weak foundational basis, the hypothetical ticking bomb scenario, which even if it were admissible in theory would not be applicable in practical situations since it leads to conclusions based on the erroneous assumption that torture is the single most effective way of obtaining information. The exceptional nature of the fight against terrorism has led to the emergence of the exception argument, which distinguishes terrorists and terror situations from the regular army personnel and army operations respectively, has also been proposed as justification of torture as a counter-terrorism strategy. The proponents of this argument contend that by virtue of their membership in the terrorist organization, terrorists denounce their fundamental rights and place themselves in an exceptional situation where the rights granted to prisoners of war do not apply. The global treaties and conventions that denounce the use of terror do not recognize terrorists as combatants, which provide the ground for differential treatment that is advanced in the exception argument. This argument justifies torture in the fight against terrorism by proposing that the nature of terror acts excludes terrorists from any legal protections including the Geneva conventions since individuals who propagate terror against fellow human beings should not be considered part of humanity. In that respect, this argument does score on the point that the exceptional nature of terrorism and terrorists does enforce the global environment that justifies the suspension of fundamental human rights when handling terror suspects. Consequently, the exception argument justifies the use of torture in the fight against terrorism on the grounds that individuals who perpetrate mass killings of innocent human beings have no desire to belong to humanity and do denounce all their fundamental rights as humans. Overall, the various pro-torture arguments in the fight against global terrorism notwithstanding, the massive and wide scale use of torture as an interrogational tool for abstracting life-saving information from terror suspects is still largely controversial given that it poses serious challenges to the protection of human rights, the rule of law and governance (“Counter-terrorism strategies, human rights and international law” 2007, p.571). The US and its allies are responsible for the perpetration of the global wide scale pervasiveness of torture as a counter-terrorist strategy with reports of regularized torture of suspects taking place in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and the Bagram Air Base prompting concerns about the justification of the use of interrogational torture and its overall effectiveness in comparison to legal interrogational procedures. Nonetheless, in as much as states are expected to protect the security of their citizenry which entails safeguarding their right to life among other human rights, this obligation of states does not in any way include further violations of human rights through sanction of state-sponsored instruments of torture and other ill-treatments. Implications of legitimizing state-sponsored torture The legitimization of state-sponsored programmes of torture in the war against terrorism following the tragic 9/11 attacks and the pervasiveness of global terror and its catastrophic individual as well as collective human cost has had adverse implications for the rule of law, human rights, as well as good governance (Hoffman 2004, p.932). Legitimization of government-sponsored torture programmes poses serious challenges to the protection and promotion of human rights and the rule of law in general since it entails flouting of the legal and practical safeguards institutionalized to prevent torture in the world. Consequently, the global legal and practical safeguards including systematic and free monitoring of detention centres have been largely marginalized thereby putting suspects at risk of torture and other serious abuses of human rights. Furthermore, the global legal obligation of non-refoulement has been largely violated by the legitimization of government-sponsored programmes around the world, which eventually perpetrate torture at large scale. International law prohibits the forceful sending, transfer, or return of individuals to the country where they are likely to be subjected to torture and other cruel forms of human rights abuses or ill-treatment (Echeverria 2004, p.27). The principle argument for non-refoulement is the protection of human rights since the fight against terrorism can only be won with inviolability of human rights, and the states cannot be secure until the rights of individuals residing in them are secured. Human rights bodies across the world have continuously reiterated the need to protect human rights in the fight against terrorism since human rights are inevitably the bedrock of any effective counter-terrorism strategy (Yusuf 2012, p.184). However, with the legitimization of state-sponsored torture programmes, a vast majority of human rights have been thoroughly undermined as the approaches taken by states in the fight against terror disregard human rights in whole. In that respect, the legitimization of state-sponsored torture programmes does justify human rights violations as the only effective counter-terrorism strategy to maintain national and global security (Hoang 2009, p.1). Increasingly, many states are buying the argument that it is not possible to protect and promote human rights while at the same time fighting terrorism, since human rights, including non-derogable ones such as torture interferes with the ability of states to fight terrorism adequately. In this case, legitimization of state-sponsored torture programmes implies that it is justified and justifiable to torture prisoners, even those that have not been suspected of terrorist affiliation as is often the case in Abu Ghraib. The danger of legitimizing state-sponsored torture programmes is the implication that it inevitably results to the mass routine implementation across different places around the world thereby leading to large-scale violations of human right through the perpetration of torture and other ill-treatments (Bennoume 2008, p.35). In that case, torture of suspects of terror has largely become the rule rather than the exception, unlike in the past, when it was reserved as a last resort interrogational tool, the context of its usage today does not warrant emergency situations like the metaphorical ticking bomb case in point. The fact that torture, which was initially reserved for high value targets like members of global terror groups such as Al-Qaeda, is now commonly used with prisoners who do not even have the remotest connection to the operations of terror networks indicates that torture is now a common place practice rather than an exception in the war against terror. For instance, many states have followed the example set by the US and its allies in the implementation of regularized and large scale torture of suspected terror criminals in the fight against terrorism thereby further exacerbating the violation of human rights while promoting regularized large scale human rights abuses. Torture really does invalidate the confessions thereby generating the evidence that is not admissible in the courts of law, besides giving false leads that often derail investigations that could be potentially leading. Interrogation officers have often reported that suspects have the capacity to withstand torture and to only yield to interrogations by submitting false confessions that will stop torture and the violent treatment; in that respect, the validity of information gathered from a terror suspect through torture cannot be relied upon as a true account. Furthermore, torture of terror suspects is not likely to yield the anticipated quick results because state-sponsored torture programmes are designed to undermine a suspect’s resistance through persistent degradation yet terrorists are often equipped with resistance training. The implication of this is that torture does fail to achieve its initial objectives of aiding in the collection of life-saving information that is crucial for countering terrorism thereby further exacerbating the terror situation that would actually have been solved by legal interrogation procedures. Additionally, torture results to numerous long-term social as well as psychological implications for the victims and even their families in general; for instance, years or even decades long after the torture incidents have happened, torture victims can no longer reintegrate into their usual social environments. In that respect, former victims of torture are more likely to resort to severe forms of self-destruction, and more so, the innocent victims of torture are more susceptible to the most devastating effects of social and psychological consequences of torture. Furthermore, the regularized and wide scale violation of human rights norms through legitimization of state-sponsored torture programmes does exacerbate the gap between the Muslim world and the entire global society in general, and with the U.S and its global allies in particular. Extremist perspectives and massive radicalization of individuals has been at the highest in the global society following the apparent legitimization of state-sponsored torture programmes since the terror groups have now been given a justifiable course, to retaliate by recruiting more followers under the guise of protecting the rights that have been violated by states through torture. Evidently, global terror groups have consequently gained the capacity to recruit membership across the world especially among those whose rights have been breached, their friends and relatives; the innocent victims of torture have become highly susceptible to recruitment into terror groups in retaliation to the violation of their rights. Perhaps the most critical implication of the legitimization of state-sponsored torture of terror suspects is the fact that the major implementers of this counter-terrorism strategy such as the US and its allies risk losing their legitimacy as guardians of global security altogether, thereby prompting massive radicalization. Apart from that, the concept of democracy, which is based on the ideals of free and fair governance, has also come under trial especially with the numerous repressive measures taken by states to suppress the force of civil activism including human rights defenders, journalists, minorities, as well as indigenous groups (Cooper 2007, p.15). The covert state counter-terrorism strategies following the legitimization of state-sponsored terror programmes has been a major setback to the progress made towards democratic governance in the 21st century since it stifles the very ideals upon which governments and governance are based. Regularized and large-scale violations of human rights in addition to other adverse ill-treatments go against the grain in all domains, thereby undermining the fundamental ideals of effective governance and civil protections. For instance, the independence of the judiciary system in many places around the world has been greatly undermined, and the effectiveness of the regular court systems affected by the introduction of exceptional courts for the trial of civilians in the fight against global terrorism (UNCHR 2008, p.1). The regular courts no longer play their roles of ensuring legal processes that protect and promote justice and human rights of individuals since their mandate has been thoroughly constrained by the exceptional courts whose sole purpose is to facilitate the application of torture in the fight against terrorism. Overall, the consequences of the legitimization of state-sponsored torture programmes has negative implications for the society as a whole since it undermines the moral reservations against its use in addition to disregarding the validity of human rights norms as well as the rule of law in the global society. Most of the most profound and fundamental ideals upon which foundations of the global civil societies are based become extremely questionable under the legitimization of state-sponsored torture programmes (Cooper 2007, p.15). Conclusion This paper has espoused numerous justifications of the legitimization of torture as a counter-terrorist strategy, particularly from the deontological as well as from the consequentialist perspectives. Nonetheless, both the deontologist and consequentialist arguments of justification of torture are largely flawed and do not offer any solid justifiable claim for the legitimization of state-sponsored torture programmes in the fight against terrorism. The deontologists insist that torture is not morally justified since it leads to the massive violation of human rights and pervasive degradation of human dignity in ways that are never comparable while the consequentialists’ argument for justification of torture fails to build a water-tight case for the moral justification of torture. Despite the hypothetical ticking time bomb scenario proposed by the consequentialists being unrealistic, torture is no more an effective intelligence gathering tool than the legal interrogational techniques and besides that, it is more likely to yield misleading confessions. The legitimization of state-sponsored programmes of torture does result to numerous adverse implications particularly in terms of challenges for the protection and promotion of human rights, the rule of law, as well as global governance in general. Overall, the legitimization of state-sponsored torture programmes has devastating long impacts not only for the victims and their families, but also for the entire global society since it undermines the essential foundations of the global order and system, thus, the consequences of torture as a counter-terrorism strategy outweigh its benefits. References Bennoume, K. (2008). Terror/Torture. Berkeley Journal of International Law 26(1): 1-61. Echeverria, G. (2004). Terrorism, counterterrorism and torture: International law in the fight against Terrorism. Available at: http://www.redress.org/downloads/publications/TerrorismReport.pdf UNCHR. (2008). Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism: Fact sheet No.32. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet32EN.pdf Cooper, J. (2007). Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights: A Manual. Available at: http://www.osce.org/odihr/29103?download=true Foot, R. (2007). The united nations, counter terrorism, and human rights: Institutional adaptation and embedded ideas.Human Rights Quarterly, 29(2), 489-514. Palti, L. (2005). Combating terrorism while protecting human rights. UN Chronicle, 41(4), 27-28.  Piazza, J. A., & Walsh, J. I. (2010). Terrorism and human rights. PS, Political Science & Politics, 43(3), 407-409.  Hoffman, P. (2004). Human rights and terrorism. Human Rights Quarterly, 26(4), 932-955. Yusuf, S. (2012). The resilience of the human rights norm in an era of counter-terrorism. UNISCI Discussion Papers, (28), 183-212. Hoang, N. (2009). International human rights law and the protection of the individuals rights in the age of terrorism: The case of the United Kingdom. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. “Counter-terrorism strategies, human rights and international law: Meeting the challenges.” (2007). Netherlands International Law Review, 54(3), 571-587. Blakeley, R. (2007). Why torture? Review of International Studies, 33(3), 373.  Wolfendale, J. (2006). Training torturers: A critique of the "ticking bomb" argument. Social Theory and Practice, 32(2), 269-287. Williams, K. (2005). Legitimizing torture. Commonweal, 132(21), 22-23,26. Read More