Between 1994 and 1995 authorities received information that Ramzi Yousef, who was being interrogated in the Philippines, planned to blow up a dozen jumbo jets over the Pacific Ocean. Ramzi Yousef was one of the masterminds of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Philippine authorities were able to foil Yousef’s plan after they tortured the terrorist for sixty-seven days (Guiora & Page, 2006). By foiling the bombings of a dozen jumbo jets, the Philippine authorities saved several hundred lives before the act was carried out by a terrorist. This scenario is a perfect example of a “ticking bomb” situation. A “ticking bomb” scenario involves an uncooperative terrorist, like an al-Qaeda or Taliban captive, who refuses to produce information about an imminent chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. After all methods of interrogation have not been successful, is it o.k. to torture the captive? National polls have shown that some Americans support torture in some situations, though the majority still opposes torture itself (Allhoff, 2003). If you believe that torture is not morally acceptable and is wrong, consider this “ticking bomb” scenario in Italy. In 1978 an ultra-left Red Brigade commandos kidnapped former Prime Minister Aldo Moro, the head of the ruling Christian Democratic party, after killing his bodyguard (Andersen, 2002). An Italian police officer suggested to General Carlos Alberto Della Chiesa that a detainee who had vital information should be tortured to save the former prime minister’s life. General Carlos Alberto Della Chiesa was the individual who was in charge of the investigation. General Della Chiesa who was later killed by the Sicilian Mafia, stated “Italy can permit itself to lose Aldo Moro, what it cannot allow is the practice of torture” (Anderson, 2002). Former Prime Minister Aldo Moro was eventually killed by his captives 54 days after he was kidnapped even though a prisoner in government custody had all the information to save a man’s life and arrest members of a terrorist organization. This scenario shows that regardless of the political or moral stance on torture, people still lose their lives. We will examine the legality of torture or lack thereof and history of torture in the United States. The philosophic theories of torture will also be examined.
Torture, for some countries, is a common approach to obtaining information from captive prisoners. Saddam Hussein’s former country of Iraq practices cruel torture techniques such as cutting out peoples tongues, gouging out eyes, lopping off limbs, stringing people up with piano wire, and executing people by the tens of thousands among other methods (Hooks & Mosher, 2005). The countries of Jordon, Egypt, and Morocco are well-known for inflicting brutal treatment on not only on suspected terrorists, but against political dissidents as well. While torture is an old and common practice to obtain information in other countries, some people incorrectly assume that it is a relatively new practice in the United States.
From the beginnings of this country to today’s current “War on Terror”, torture has been documented even though torture violates U.S. Code and the Geneva Conventions throughout history. The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, a category that includes torture. U.S. law under 18 U.S.C 2340-2340A states that there are no exceptions that would allow for the use of torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the use of torture in any circumstances without actually defining what constitutes torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). So, why does the United States still commit acts of torture? This is partially due to the Landau Commission in 1984, also known as a National Committee of Inquiry, which concluded that controlled moderate physical duress could be allowed in “ticking bomb” situations (Guiora & Page, 2006). The Commission found that certain interrogation methods were legal. This included wall standing, the playing of loud music, sleep deprivation, physical discomfort through manipulation of room temperatures, sitting in an uncomfortable position, and the wearing of a hood. Furthermore, in a “ticking bomb” situation the detainee could be violently shaken (Guiora & Page, 2006). Eventually, a series of court rulings stated that certain actions were acceptable while others were not in “ticking bomb” situations.
During the Reagan Administration, the U.S. relied on the court ruling in Ireland v. United Kingdom that found that torture is limited to “extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruel practices” (Guiora & Page, 2006). This set an international judicial precedent that actions including wall standing, hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation, and deprivation of food and drink were inhuman and degrading; but these do not amount to torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). Therefore, U.S. authorities used such methods that would not violate law, since certain actions do not constitute as torture.
The balance of legitimate national security interests of the United States and the civil liberties of the individual came to a head on September 11th, 2001. President Bush and his administration, after the largest terroristic acts on U.S. soil and in our history, dealt with the issue between intelligence and interrogation and whether the confluence of the two must necessarily lead to torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). The Bush administration was confronted with legal and moral dilemmas regarding the limits of counter-terrorism. A memo written by LTC Jerald Pfifer on October 11, 2001 specified which interrogation techniques may be used against detainees held in Abu Ghraid and Guantanamo Bay that were holding suspected terrorist responsible for the 9-11 attacks (Guiora & Page, 2006). These techniques included using scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or painful consequences are imminent for the detainee and their family, the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation, and “water-boarding”. “Water-boarding” is the strapping down of a detainee to a board or held down to induce the sensation of drowning as either water is repeatedly poured down the individual’s throat or the head is immersed in water (Guiora & Page, 2006). Another memo that affected the counter-terrorism torture debate post-September 11th was a memo drafted by then Assistant Attorney General (now Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge) Jay Bybee. According to the Bybee memo, for an act to be defined as torture the interrogator must have intended to cause the detainee prolonged harm for a number of months or years (Guiora & Page, 2006). These memos lead to the events that transpired at Abu Ghraid, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, and additional secret facilities. The events that transpired have led others in the international community to assume the American government endorses and therefore encourages torture.
A report in 2004 conducted an investigation after the Abu Ghraib abuses were highly publicized. The Fay-Jones report identified 44 instances or events of detainee abuse committed by Military Police, Military Intelligence soldiers, and civilian contractors at Abu Ghirab prison. Some of the found actions included the following:
a. Contests between army dog handlers to see who could make the detainees urinate or defecate in the presence of dogs;
b. Three detainees were stripped, handcuffed together nude, forced to lay on the ground, forced to lie on each other and stimulate sex while being photographed;
c. The rape of a female detainee and the rape of a 15-18 year-old male detainee;
d. A detainee being forced to bark like a dog and crawl on his stomach while MP’s spat and urinated on him;
e. Several instances of detainees being forced to wear woman’s underwear, often on their heads;
f. A detainee who was beaten with a broom and had a chemical light broken and poured over his body. MP’s then used the broom to sodomize the detainee while two female MP’s hit him, threw a ball at his genitals and took photographs (Hooks & Mosher, 2005).
These actions lead to the dishonorable discharge of Pvt. Charles Graner, Pfc. Lynndie England, Spc. Sabrina Harman, and others (Guirra & Page, 2006). While lower ranking members working at Abu Ghraid detention center were sentenced and found guilty of their crimes, higher ranking members received no criminal sentences. President Bush further stated during media reports that these actions were the results of “bad apples” and not due to official memos sent from higher commanders. I personally did not believe that these low ranking soldiers acted alone, I believe their behavior was seen by supervisors and nothing was done to stop it. Interestingly enough, the same report in Abu Ghraid offenses states that 90 percent of the detainees were arrested by mistake; even though this cannot be confirmed because of national security issues and lack of media disclosures (Hooks & Mosher, 2005).
While the detainees were not arrested for minor traffic violations and their accused offenses are murderous crimes, does this make torture permissible? Prominent public figures have defended and excused the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraid, although they are illegal acts. It can be argued that individuals forfeit whatever rights that might protect them against torture once they engage in certain activities, such as terrorism. If this philosophical argument is true, then torture technically does not violate rights. Assume that a captive has knowledge that could prevent the deaths of innocent lives, like those in the “ticking bomb” situations described above. If a captive is not tortured and the information is not obtained, then the rights of the innocent lives has just been violated. If you torture or not torture prisoners in a “ticking bomb” situation someone’s rights will be violated. Therefore, I am personally unsure if torture can ever be justified, so long as we find ourselves in such a quandary that rights will end up being broken whether torture occurs or not.
REFERENCES
Allhoff, F. (2003). Terrorism and Torture. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17, (1), 105-118.
Andersen, M. (2002). Is Torture an Option In War on Terror?. Insight on the News, 18, (22), 21-23.
Guiora, A. & Page, E. (2006). The Unholy Trinity: Intelligence, Interrogation and Torture. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 37, (2/3), 427-447.
Guiora, A. & Page, E. (2006). The Unholy Trinity: Intelligence, Interrogation and Torture. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 37, (2/3), 427-447.
Hooks, G. & Mosher, C. (2005). Outrages Against Personal Dignity: Rationalizing Abuse and Torture in the War on Terror. Social Forces, 83, (4), 1627-1646.
