Torture in Extreme Emergencies - Essay Example

Torture in Extreme Emergencies There has been extensive debate on the issue of torture and its moral permissibility. There have been requests on banning cruel treatment and torture of prisoners of war. With respect to what is torture, there have been varied philosophical views from Michael Davis (2005) and David Sussman (2005). The various debates regarding this issue includes whether torture is justifiable during emergencies and also whether it is considered legal in states where there is ongoing terrorist attacks. The debates have divided the decision makers into two groups – one who support it especially in the case of terrorist attacks and the other group who are against it and who point out to the depravities and injustice. A third viewpoint has arisen recently which combines views of both the groups and debates that torture can in some extreme emergencies be morally justified, however it should not be legalized or institutionalized. As per the definition of torture, it involves some practices like using electric shocks, cutting some body parts, using hot iron, administrating severe pain, depriving of food, water and sleep for days together or beating. All this includes physically assaulting a person by the torturer by having a control over the person. The person who is being tortured is defenceless and also not agreeable to such assault. Apart from these, extreme mental assault can also be considered torture. However, the extent of it and consent of the person being tortured to brand the assault as torture is well arguable. On the other hand, it might be argued that some cases of intentional infliction of extreme mental suffering on non-consenting, defenceless persons are cases of torture, whereas some instances are not. According to an article on Torture by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy published in February, 2006, “In various national and international laws, e.g. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (United Nations 1984 — see Other Internet Resources), a distinction is made between torture and inhumane treatment, albeit torture is a species of inhumane treatment. Such a distinction needs to be made. For one thing, some treatment, e.g. flogging, might be inhumane without being sufficiently extreme to count as torture. For another thing, some inhumane treatment does not involve physical suffering to any great extent, and is therefore not torture, properly speaking (albeit, the treatment in question may be as morally bad as, or even morally worse than, torture). Some forms of the infliction of mental suffering are a case in point, as are some forms of morally degrading treatment, for example causing a prisoner to pretend to have sex with an animal.” (Unknown author, Torture, 2006) Though the main reason for torture is to break the victim’s will, the other reasons for torture according to the above-mentioned U.N. Convention list them as to get a confession for a crime, to gather some information; to force a person or a group of people to behave in a way desired by the torturer as well as to punish for the crime. Now the question arises on why torture is considered as wrong. Torture includes two aspects which are morally wrong as it involves administrating acute physical assault which is done intentionally on another person as well as it is administered on a fellow human being involving intentional, substantial curtailment of individual autonomy. Authorities in the field feel that torture is worse than killing. According to Michael Davis, “Both torture and (premature) death are very great evils but, if one is a greater evil than the other, it is certainly torture” (Davis, Michael, 2005: 165), and David Sussman feels, “Yet while there is a very strong moral presumption against both killing and torturing a human being, it seems that we take the presumption against torture to be even greater than that against homicide” (Sussman, David, 2005: 15). Another point related to why torture is considered wrong is that it is inflicting pain on a person who is powerless as well as helpless. Now coming to the argument regarding moral justification on torture in the case of extreme emergencies, it is seen that there have been cases of institutionalized acts of torture by legal authorities during extreme emergences. The argument here is that there could be one-off acts of torture in extreme emergencies which can be considered as morally justifiable. However, if the torture is regularly administered then it is not morally justified as in the case of winning a war on terrorism. According to Nicholas Vrousalis in his article `Is Torture ever Justified?’, “A variety of moral arguments have been put forward in support of torture in cases of supreme emergency, or moral disaster. Likewise, a variety of arguments have been put forward against torture. They can tentatively be classified in five categories: arguments from consequences, arguments from efficacy, arguments from proportionality, arguments from autonomy and arguments from ‘moral ground’.” (Vrousalis, Nicholas, 2005) Civil libertarian, Alan Dershowitz's has been writing extensively on the legal basis of torture. On November 8, 2001, in a commentary for Los Angeles Times “Is there a torturous road to justice?” he discusses a proposal for a warranty for torture. According to Seth Finkelstein, in his article on Alan Dershowitz's Tortuous Torturous Argument, “Much of the reaction to Alan Dershowitz's advocacy has blurred over a subtle point. Given that torture is such an incendiary subject, he's been accused of advocating torture itself (“Dershowitz : Make Torture An Option” ads a headline on cbsnews.com). However, a careful reading of his commentary makes it clear that he isn't putting forth an argument in favor of torture per se. Rather, he postulates it will occur ("I have no doubt that if an actual ticking bomb situation were to arise, our law enforcement authorities would torture"). His point is then almost tangential from that perspective, a professorial concern with the due process of torture! To wit: The real debate is whether such torture should take place outside of our legal system or within it. The answer to this seems clear: If we are to have torture, it should be authorized by the law.” (Seth Finkelstein, 2007) According to ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Is There a Torturous Road to Justice?, “The FBI's frustration over its inability to get material witnesses to talk has raised a disturbing question rarely debated in this country: When, if ever, is it justified to resort to unconventional techniques such as truth serum, moderate physical pressure and outright torture? The constitutional answer to this question may surprise people who are not familiar with the current U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination: Any interrogation technique, including the use of truth serum or even torture, is not prohibited. All that is prohibited is the introduction into evidence of the fruits of such techniques in a criminal trial against the person on whom the techniques were used. But the evidence could be used against that suspect in a non-criminal case--such as a deportation hearing--or against someone else. If a suspect is given "use immunity"--a judicial decree announcing in advance that nothing the defendant says (or its fruits) can be used against him in a criminal case--he can be compelled to answer all proper questions. The issue then becomes what sorts of pressures can constitutionally be used to implement that compulsion. We know that he can be imprisoned until he talks. But what if imprisonment is insufficient to compel him to do what he has a legal obligation to do? Can other techniques of compulsion be attempted?” Democracy requires accountability and transparency, especially when extraordinary steps are taken. Most important, it requires compliance with the rule of law. And such compliance is impossible when an extraordinary technique, such as torture, operates outside of the law.” (Dershowitz, Alan M., 2007) Similarly, in the book on Violence, Terrorism & Justice by Frey, R.G and Morris, C.W. (eds.) 1991, a few social thinkers discuss the problems related to terrorism as well as aspects related to terrorist violence which needs to be based on its consequences as well as finding out ways and means to stop people who use violence without justification. It also discusses the moral foundations for the use of force as well as torture. It also touches upon state terrorism which is usually affected by pressures from certain groups. (Frey, R.G and Morris, C.W. (eds.) 1991) Conclusion : Considering various viewpoints and issues related to torture warrants, the inevitable conclusion is that the practice of torture could not be restricted to a single system of legalized torture warrants and the consequences of its not being contained would be horrific. To add to this would be that the damage to liberal institutions would be tremendous. Finally, the benefits of a system of legalized torture warrants over the longer term are likely to be miniscule; and certainly easily outweighed by the costs. References : Unknown author, Torture by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy published in February, 2006 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ Davis, Michael, 2005, “ The Moral Justification of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 161-78. Sussman, David, 2005, “What's Wrong with Torture?”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 33, pp. 1-33. Vrousalis Nicholas, November 23, 2005, Is Torture ever Justified? http://www.theorein.org/torture.pdf Seth Finkelstein, website viewed on April 2007 Alan Dershowitz's Tortuous Torturous Argument http://www.spectacle.org/0202/seth.html Alan M. Dershowitz website viewed on April 2007 Is There a Torturous Road to Justice? http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Dershowitz.htm Frey, R.G and Morris, C.W. (eds.) 1991 Violence, Terrorism & Justice New York: Cambridge University Press website viewed on April 2007 http://www.powells.com/biblio/0521409500?&PID=31879 Read More