Torture of Suspected Terrorists - Essay Example

? Torture of Suspected Terrorists Terrorist attacks in the past two decades have taken a new form. They are real; they are also devastating to the nation emotionally, politically and economically. As such, the need to prevent the occurrence of devastating events such as September 11th attacks on the world trade centre preoccupies the government. The urgency and despair in this situation calls for quick and efficient acquisition of information. In view of this urgency, interrogation may result in the inhumane treatment of individuals. Torture of suspected terrorists may not go well with the moral stand of the nation, but there are situations that are dire and; therefore, require that authorities utilize torture. As such, America has a right to torture terrorist suspects but under exceptional circumstances (Hickey, 2012). Crucial is the fact that terrorism does not take an isolated approach. This is to say that terrorism does not restrict to breaking of a law. Acts of terrorism inflict harm on third parties most of whom are innocent law abiding citizens. Terrorism is a crime against humanity because it causes harm to individuals and undermines the sanctity of freedoms such as the right to life. Moher (2004), advocates for the use of torture using the argument “a lesser of the two evils”. In the event that one person stands in the way of saving millions from harm by with holding information, then extreme measures are likely to suffice. However, sanctified the rights of an individual, the government is likely to protect the masses rather than one person (Hickey, 2012). While describing the phrase “a lesser of the two evils”, utilitarianism is in play. This is the idea that a policy is as relevant as the extent to which it protects, to a greater advantage, the masses, as opposed to an isolated few. Nonetheless, there is a need to establish under what situation torture is valid and what form this torture will take. Currently, America utilizes the policy of torture under the Radar screen. This technique encompasses underground torture methods such as rendition. This is where the suspect is subject to interrogation in a nation that has less restrictive rules on torture by using torture lite methods. Moher (2004) holds that it is more appropriate to accept that torture exists and find a way to regulate it using the justice system. As such, he proposes utilizing a judicially sanctioned torture system. Under this judicial guise, torture will procure information from suspects with more advantages than disadvantages. First off, Moher (2004) reports on Professor Alan Dershowitz’s theory who suggests that torture be medically supervised to ensure that the process only causes pain and discomfort but not permanent body damage. Secondly, there will be some form of due process. This is because the suspect’s guilt is subject to the scrutiny of a neutral magistrate. Proofing beyond all reasonable doubt that a suspect has information is part of judicially sanctioned torture. Finally, in case of a fatality, the judicial system has the power to demand an explanation and, therefore, reducing the chances of extreme brutality on the suspects (Hickey, 2012). Moher (2004) argues that judicially sanctioned torture is, therefore, more humane than the current underground system. Moreover, it is imperative to note that his stand on torture is in regard to the ticking bomb scenario. That is the suspect is holding information needed sooner rather than later, and the lack of this information could result in greater damage than torturing would cause. In summary, these arguments call for the use of logic rather than the inclination towards morality and its related emotional entanglements. Utilitarianism in this case is a logical approach (Hickey, 2012). Though most torture methods do not have a scientific basis, their success in obtaining information has proven adequate for the most part (Clarke, 2007). Expert interrogators claim that humans tend to avoid pain and discomfort, however, minimal. Hardcore terror suspects who have advance avoidance and manipulative techniques tend to delay the interrogation process. In light of this, interrogators prefer aggressive interrogation techniques to the mild, officially approved methods because torture yields information faster. Other findings relay that even the threat of torture is enough to make a suspect talk. In fact, the threat of torture is more effective than the act of torture. This is because the threat of torture elicits fear of the unknown which causes sufficient psychological turmoil causing the suspect to divulge information (Clarke, 2007). Malley-Morrison (2009), carried out a research to determine the opinions of Americans on the governments right to torture terror suspects after the 9/11 attacks. Granted, majority of the respondents were against torture; however, a significant percentage supported the acts of the government. Those in support of torture cited logic and collateral damage as a valid reason to advocate for torture. Therefore, if the government has to violate the rights of a few individuals to safeguard those of millions, this is logically acceptable collateral damage. As such, supporters of torture term the repercussions accidental and not purposeful intent to harm. During combat, actions plans are subject to flaws regardless of the purpose of the plan. Nonetheless, the flaws should not relegate failure to the intended results. As such, the success of an action, in view of the Americans that support torture, is acquiring information and saving the masses not preserving the sanctity of the rights of a terror suspect at the peril of millions (Malley-Morrison, 2009). Clarke, J. (2007). Torture: When the Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible. New York: SUNY Press. Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com. Clarke discusses the benefits of torture in view of quick retrieval of information. He is of the view that the outcomes of a policy (or action) will validate a programme despite the moral taints. The interrogation methods toy with human instincts to retrieve information and the outcome is more beneficial than it is harmful. Malley-Morrison, K. (2009). State Violence and the Right to Peace: Western Europe and North America. New York: ABC-CLIO. Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com. Malley-Morrison outlines the inevitability of torture. Though most of his work is against torture, he empasizes on the need to safeguard the masses. As such, he maintains that meeting some objectives may elicite some undesired results. In retrospect, the objectives in a given situation may determine the cause of action. References: Clarke, J. (2007). Torture: When the Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible. New York: SUNY Press. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com Malley-Morrison, K. (2009). State Violence and the Right to Peace: Western Europe and North America. New York: ABC-CLIO. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com Moher, A. A. (2012). The Lesser of the Two Evils? Argument for a Judiciary Sanctioned Torture in a post 9/11 world. In T. J. Hickey, Taking sides: Dlashing Views in Crime and Criminology (pp. 75 - 96). New York: McGraw-Hill. Read More