Uses of Torture

Introduction

The moral and legal debate over the use of torture has been existence since the early days of enlightenment. Despite prohibition of this deplorable practice by states and individuals from the beginning of the 20th century, torture continues to be a common practice worldwide. There have even been arguments in support of the use of torture due to the escalation of the war against terror and threats posed by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of extremist terrorists. Torture has become a common method in the interrogation process by law enforcement agencies even in states that claim to uphold human rights values and signatories of treaties that prohibit the practice.

The United States, for instance, is a global leader in advocacy of human rights and justice yet continues to be engaged in practices that fall within the precise definition of torture. There are testimonies by former detainees of containment facilities such as Guantanamo Bay and Diego Garcia where the CIA is reputed to have used stress and duress methods while interrogating suspects. Shameful atrocities committed at the Abu Ghraib prison by military officers such as Lynndie England are clear examples of sanctioned torture policies. In 2004, the world was shocked by revelations of the inhuman experiences Iraqi prisoners of war underwent in the hands of British soldiers (Danner 45). It is in regard to such unfortunate events that the subject of torture has over time dominated both public and academic debates. Critics of the sanctioned use of torture maintain that the practice demonstrates a country’s racist and imperialistic tendencies with total disregard for human rights. This paper investigates torture by defining the practice, tracing its history, analyzing arguments given by supporters and opponents of the practice, and evaluating the available solutions or alternatives to torture in the investigative and interrogation processes.

Definition of torture

There have been several legal and moral definitions of torture over time. A common principle in all definition of torture is the view that the practice as an immoral abuse of human rights. Rodley describes the practice as “the officially sanctioned infliction of intense suffering, aimed at forcing someone to do or say something against his or her will” (7). Torture basically refers to intentional infliction of severe physical or psychological pain with the aim of breaking the will or silence of the victim. The practice is mainly used in forceful extraction of information from the tortured victim, in intimidation, revenge, and punishment of prisoners, and to enforce political propaganda or fear of retribution for airing opposing political views. It is also used as a method of coercion and control of groups that pose a threat to the reign of an existing government or authority. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights considers torture as an extreme violation of human rights.

Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment describes torture as:

“Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions” (Einolf 102).

This definition, however, restricts the use of torture to government agencies and allows the use of torture in interrogation processes conducted by government officials. The definition also permits death penalty as a sanctioned form of torture. The broadest and all encompassing definition of torture is the one adopted by the Amnesty International in 1973 which states that “Torture is the systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain by one person on another, or on a third person, in order to accomplish the purpose of the former against the will of the latter” (Amnesty International).

Torture is in most cases perpetrated by individuals at the instigation of, or with the consent of, a public official or a figure of authority with the power to give such orders. Examples of persons with the official capacity to torture a victim or give orders for an individual to be tortured include prison officers, police officers, military personnel, and guerrilla forces with or without the blessing of the state. The practice is also often perpetrated by health and legal professionals as well as by other co-detainees with direct approval by state or public officials. There are also state-run death squads and paramilitary forces who engage in activities that can only be defined as torture.

There are many similarities in the methods used to torture victims in different societies. All these methods have one thing in common which is to inflict as much physical or psychological pain on the victim’s body without causing life-threatening injuries. Most forms of torture involve physical beatings, rape or other forms of sexual assault, electrical shock treatment, inflicting burns on the skin, near-drowning of victims, breaking limbs and other body parts, and forcing the victim to maintain an uncomfortable physical position for an extended period of time among many other ways of inflicting pain to the tortured victim’s body (Forrest 45). Psychological torture may take many forms such as abduction of a loved one or solitary confinement in dark limiting spaces for a long time. Harsh prison conditions can also be considered as torture.

Normally, torture is not only suffered by the victim alone. The victim’s family as well as close friends and associates are also affected psychologically in the knowledge of the suffering their spouse, relative, or close friend is being forced to endure. The society at large suffers too from both the trauma one of their members is exposed to as well as in the knowledge that basic human rights are no longer guaranteed much less respected by the authority. Everyone is apprehensive of being the next victim and is no longer sure of living in a free and safe environment.

Current issues on the use of torture by government agencies

It is important to note that the International Law prohibits torturing a human being regardless of his or her nationality or the circumstances under which he or she is detained for. This prohibition is not a recent issue but can be traced back to the 19th century when European governments abolished all forms of torture. In practice, however, torture continues to be exercised under several guises such as interrogation or investigation processes. In the 20th century, torture was most commonly exercised on individuals who were not considered as full members of a society or state due to their racial, ethnic, or religious backgrounds. Such unfortunate victims included slaves, prisoners of war, and foreigners.

In the present times, torture is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 20th century and is less often used against citizens of a state. The practice is usually seen in cases involving serious issues such as treason, threats to national security, and by errant police officers in extraction of critical information or confessions from suspects. The use of torture against enemy militant personnel, POWs, and civilian populations increases with the number and severity of conflicts and wars.

History of torture

The practice of torture can be said to be as old as humanity itself. It can be traced back to medieval times when citizens were tortured for numerous reasons ranging from religious heresy to serious accusations such as treason. However, citizens of a nation or republic could not be tortured without proof of their guilt. Non-citizens such as slaves and members of other states or nations, on the other hand, did not enjoy such protection and could be tortured without state interference or protection. In the early period of the Roman Empire, first class citizens, called honestores, were exempted from torture due to their high status but second class citizens, called humiliores, were commonly tortured after it was ascertained, by presentation of valid evidence, that they had committed a serious crime (Garnsey 141).

Christians were frequently tortured at will by the authorities in the early Roman Empire. This was mainly done to enforce emperor worship practices and for fear of retributions such as increased natural disasters by pagan gods angered by the refusal of Christians to pay them homage. De Ste. Croix states that torture and execution of Christians at this period had a ritualistic function of appeasing the gods (97). Common punishment methods included being boiled in hot water, the breaking wheel, crucifixion, being impaled on a stake, disembowelment, stoning, sawing off limbs, burning a victim tied to a stake, and necklacing besides being whipped naked. Such gruesome methods were considered as part of the justice system for many years until the emergence of humanism in the 17th century.

The church, on the other hand had a long history of inflicting torture on citizens suspected to be practitioners of witchcraft. In the Medieval Period, witchcraft was considered as a form of devil worship and as treason against God. Heretics were also considered as traitors to the church and were exposed to inhuman acts of torture with the aim of making them denounce their heretic beliefs. One of the common forms of inquisition torture by the church was known as strappado in which the accused heretic or witch had his or her hands bound behind and suspended by a rope from a raised platform. The result was a dislocation of joints in both arms. Other torture practices performed by the church included the thumbscrew and waterboarding in which large amounts of water were pumped into the victim’s stomach via the throat. These practices were quite prevalent during the Spanish Inquisition period and were conducted in secret torture chambers within the dungeons or sometimes in public to serve as a warning to potential heretics and witches. All through the early modern period torture was still a legal practice though its use had begun to decline across Europe. Most European governments had already abolished use of torture as state machinery at the beginning of the 18th century. The practice was outlawed throughout the continent by the year 1851. This was interpreted by most 19th scholars as humankind’s step towards a more enlightened and humane nature.

There was a resurgence of the use of torture during the Cold War especially by conservative Latin America states in their hunt for communist insurgencies. This was quite prevalent in countries like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador. Communist governments in Asian countries such as China, Laos, and North Korea are also known to have widely used torture against political opponents or individuals promoting anti-communist views.

Abolition of torture

The abolition of torture can be attributed to the spread of Enlightenment ideas and the 19th century emphasis on humane existence. Other historians such as John Langbein attribute the abolition of cruelty against fellow human beings to a change in the proof requirements for a suspect to be convicted. Before the early modern period, proof of guilt was determined by two eyewitnesses or a confession by the accused person. This is why torture was quite common in extracting a confession but with changes in the legal process where the testimony of one person or even circumstantial evidence was enough to convict, torture became unnecessary and was finally done away with.

Other theorists such as Michel Foucault maintain that torture was abandoned when governments found more effective and humane ways of controlling their subjects. In the modern period, governments placed emphasis on self-surveillance and self discipline as a more effective way of earning the people’s loyalty rather than the use of public displays of cruelty and torture. With the emergence of new forms of control and punishment, torture became less relevant and was eventually abolished.

Solutions: Laws and treaties against the use of torture

Abolition of the use of torture by governments has been implemented through a number of compliance treaties over the years. With the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948, the use of torture was officially declared a crime against humanity. Article 5 of this declaration forbade any government or authority from subjecting any human being to torture, cruelty, or other inhumane and degrading forms of punishment. Other international treaties that followed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the prevention of torture included the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). The UNCAT was established in June 1987. Another body that conducts supervision by visiting on countries or regions where people are exposed to inhuman acts of torture and degrading treatment is the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture which was established in June 2006.

The International Criminal Court established by the Rome Statute conducts prosecution against individuals and government leaders accused of torturing their subjects through genocide and other crimes against humanity. The Rome Statute defines torture as a crime against humanity when committed as a systematic attack by guerilla, military, or state agencies on civilian populations. Supervision of treaties against torture is usually conducted by an official United Nations document known as the Istanbul Protocol which is a set of international guidelines defining acts that can be construed as torture and the consequences of engaging in such acts. The Istanbul protocol was established in 1999.

The United States law also prohibits the use of torture by law enforcement agencies. Normally, evidence obtained under duress is not admissible in court. The law goes further in protecting citizens against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment enforced by the Miranda warning. This is a warning law enforcement officers are supposed to give a suspect during arrest. More importantly, the eighth amendment of US constitution prohibits exposing suspects to cruel and inhuman punishment that can be considered as torture. A good example is the case of Mohammed al-Qahtani which Susan Crawford, the prosecution supervisor of Guantanamo Military Tribunals, refused to refer to trial after it emerged that the suspect had been tortured while in confinement. The treaties and locally implemented measures against evidence obtained under torture provide the best solution in eliminating the use of torture in the interrogation and investigative process (Woodward).

A common argument justifying the use of torture

The Abu Ghraib incidence and Guantanamo Bay revelations indicate that torture still goes on in most detention centers. The existence of sanctioned torture makes it imperative to evaluate the circumstances under which proponents of torture claim the practice is justified. A common example provided by supporters of government sanctioned torture is a hypothetical case referred to as the ‘ticking bomb scenario.’ This is a hypothetical scenario where the government discovers a scheme to bomb a particularly high population neighborhood which can not be evacuated fast enough before the bomb goes off. However, if the location of the bomb can be determined by any means possible then the bomb can be disarmed and lives saved. The local law enforcement agency has a suspect who has the knowledge about the bomb location but is reluctant to divulge the information yet the clock is perilously ticking on towards the blast. In such a case, is the government justified in torturing the suspect to retrieve the information? Do we simply stand by our moral principles which forbid torture and let thousands die after the bomb goes off?

This is a scenario that poses challenging questions on our ethical and moral priorities. Proponents of torture usually adopt a utilitarian approach in such a case. A utilitarian approach bases the moral value of an action on the “common good” it brings to the society which is called the “principle of utility” (Turner 16). In a ‘ticking bomb scenario,’ proponents of torture claim that torturing the suspect will be justified because extracting the information about the bomb location from the suspect by every means possible will end up saving many lives therefore doing more good to the society. However, one might ask if, in the same line of thinking, does torturing ninety nine people to save one hundred others justified? Does this mean that law enforcement agencies can resort to torturing a suspect’s children or spouse in a bid to extract crucial information at all costs? This line of thinking proposed by proponents of sanctioned torture carries the risk of creating a precedence of justified torture which will eventually lead to justification of brutality whenever it is deemed to be the lesser evil.

Personal opinion

Through international organizations such as the Rome Statute, the United Nations, and Amnesty International, the world is heading in the right direction in creating universal laws that govern human morality and responsibilities of governments in protecting their citizens. Turner states that “ideas of common humanity and fundamental human rights were very influential in the banning of torture” (7). I fully agree with this statement on the basis of Immanuel Kant’s laws of morality which states “Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature” (Turner 14). This means that justifying torture would be the same as accepting the practice to be used against us as well.

In my opinion, morally prohibited choices should not be accepted much less put into practice regardless of the advantages or common good they bring about. Any choice an individual or state takes should conform to the moral norms of the society and the world at large. Going against moral norms creates a justified precedence which will similarly be copied and employed by others. If torture goes against the social norms and all that a society considers to be Right, then it should be forbidden regardless of how much “Good” it can bring to the security and well-being of the society. I believe attempts to justify torture on the basis of the “ticking bomb scenario” is not valid because the whole concept is based on implicit assumptions. It relies on the assumption that the suspect actually knows where the bomb is located and the fact that the bomb actually exists. If one of these assumptions is proven to be wrong then torturing the suspect is simply in vain.

Conclusion

Torturing suspects on the basis of premises such as the ticking bomb scenario fails to recognize the wider global implications of justifying the gruesome practice. The practice should not be justified on the basis of immediate and once in a lifetime incidences. Attempts to justify the practice should be examined from a global perspective rather than from a local point of view. We need to consider the consequences and implications the world would face if torture is made morally and legally acceptable. The post 9/11 war against terrorist organizations has brought about sanctioned “coercive” techniques in interrogating suspected terrorists which include practices such as “extra-ordinary rendition”. This refers to the practice of making the suspect appear to be “missing” yet in realty he or she is being held in a secret detention center being tortured for critically needed information. The United States, as a world leader in principles that emphasize on freedom and human rights, should not condone such practices by its agencies. The US is bound by international law and treaties that prohibit the use of torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. Legalizing torture “would have worldwide repercussion for the sanctity of human rights” (Saul). Sanctioning the practice of cruelty on suspects and prisoners on the basis of cases such as the ticking bomb scenario would make torture a routine practice which will later be counterproductive to the safety and welfare of the country’s citizens.

Since the medieval times, the use of torture was considered to be morally wrong. The practice should not be justified even on the basis of hypothetical cases. Of great importance is the prevention of causes that create circumstances under which torture is performed. Examples of such causes include totalitarian governments, poor leadership, corruption, and above all impunity by government officials.

Works Cited

Amnesty International. “Torture in the Eighties” Amnesty International Publications, 1983. Web.3 May 2012.

Danner, Mark. and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror. New York: New YorkReview, 2004. Print.

De Ste. Croix. “Why Were Early Christians Persecuted?” The Social Organization of Law. Ed.M. Baumgartner. San Diego: Academic Press, 1999. 28-64. Print.

Einolf, Christopher. The Fall and Rise of Torture: A Comparative and Historical Analysis.Sociological Theory 25.2 (2007): 102-121. Print.

Forrest, David. “The Methods of Torture and its Effects.” A Glimpse of Hell: Reports on TortureWorldwide. Ed. David Forrest. New York: New York University Press, 1996. 104-121.Print.

Garnsey, P. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1970. Print.

Saul, Ben. Torture degrades us all. Foreign Policy in Focus. 2005. Web. 3 May 2012.

Rodley, N. S. The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2000. Print.

Turner, B. Kicking the torture habit: John Dewey, Dirty Harry and the Torture Debate.Political Philosophy Colloquium. 2005. Web. 3 May 2012.

Woodward, Bob. “Qhatani Remains Imprisoned at Guantanamo.” Washington Post, 14 Jan.2009. Web. 3 May 2012.