The debate over the effectiveness of torture has come close to the center-stage of American politics since Donald Trump entered the political arena. On January 26 of 2016, Trump told Fox News, "Look, we have people that knocked down the World Trade Center, we have people that go into a club and they blow everyone up . . . They go into a club and they machine gun everybody down. And then, they, we're not allowed to waterboard?". Several other conservative members of Congress have echoed this idea after Trump brought the issue back up. Because of the reemergence of this debate, it is important to understand both sides of it.
It is first essential to note that the UN and the Geneva Convention have defined torture and outlawed it. The UN states that torture is defined by any act done by a public official that inflicts physical or emotional pain on a person for a specific purpose. The Geneva Convention has a similar definition, but it is specified for prisoners of war, and both firmly outlaw it. However these international laws have been ignored by the U.S before, most notably during the Bush administration, which often approved the use of torture on Middle Eastern prisoners of war. It seems this lack of regard to international stipulation has applied itself to the current pro-torture side of the debate in U.S politics.
In advocating for the use of institutionalized torture, most would bring up the "ticking time bomb scenario". This scenario hypothesizes a situation in which a terrorist attack is known to be impending, and there is a person that knows details of the attack. In this situation, it seems morally correct to torture this person and have a chance at saving innocent people from the attack. Proponents of institutionalized torture say that the net amount of pain would be minimized by torturing the person and having a chance at obtaining the necessary information to stop the attack.
However, on the other side of the argument, experts say that minimizing pain would actually involve the opposite. They say that institutionalized torture damages the democratic foundations of a nation enough for it to outweigh possible deaths that could be prevented through the use of torture. On this side of the argument, it is believed that America's reputation as a force for good would be reduced, and its connections to organizations like the UN would be damaged. Also, terrorist organizations like ISIS would be able to motivate more members of their society to join them.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trump-on-torture-again/
http://www.apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/26/does-torture-work-and-is-it-worth-the-cost-donald-trump
Torture is an inhumane and ineffective way of securing information but the reputation of torture is believed to demoralize the enemy but you mention that the torture could be used as a means of recruiting by the enemies of the american people. While I have no sympathy for any terrorists it seems like a waste of resources, an insult to democracy and also a tool for our enemies to keep their cause alive and well.
ReplyDelete