Torture is thought to be the breakdown of one’s will, till he or she caves. Torture in the U.S military in recent years is similar to this definition. Prisoners of war are consistently assaulted till they say uncle. The efficaciousness of the method is what bothers me. I know that if I am being subjected to daily assaults of water boarding, shock and verbal abuse, I will admit to the crime even when I’m innocent, just to make the punishment stop. Granted most of these prisoners are confirmed terrorists, but what about those who were arrested at military checkpoints or those who unknowingly overtake U.S. military convoys?
Krauthammer opposes McCain’s bill to outlaw any form of torture for prisoners of war. He defends it by stating that it makes the U.S. sitting ducks and lives are loss unnecessarily. He states that torture can be used in two scenarios, like the ticking time bomb example. The chances of this happening are slim and besides most of the Guantanamo detainees have limited knowledge of the main plan that their leaders are planning, they were just misguided accomplices.
I agree that the use of torture on anyone is inhumane but when there is no other choice, it must be used to save lives. But what kind of knowledge does the interrogators gain, are they useful or just forced confessions from the innocent prisoner? Bomb scares in the United States, as of late are often almost carried out until either technology or a citizen discovers it and puts an end to it. Despite the amount of torture and interrogation that takes place, no productive result has been yielded. Sometimes, plain interrogation may have sufficed or the truth serum would have done the trick, torture of other extreme kinds should have only been used for the hardened criminal. The problem then is the containment of its usage. The incident at Abu Ghraib is one of the problems of not being able to contain the methods of torture. There should be guidelines as to when to use it, like when lives can be prevented from being lost, or when seeking out the leader of a terrorist group etc. Using it on a person who failed to stop at a military checkpoint in Iraq or Afghanistan is just wrong. I think being able to pinpoint when torture should be used would save the reputation of the United States. Senator McCain’s total abolition is just not possible but accountability might be.
I agree with your point that the problem with torture is the containment of its use. Abu Ghraib is an example where torture started out with a smaller scope to be used on certain prisoners, but spread rapidly and out of control. In my opinion, Abu Ghraib was an example and result of soldiers of gaining too much control. As Rousseau once stated, if soldiers were "entrusted with any sort of control, however small, innumerable acts of violence, vexations and abuses without number, would ensue". Based on the ideas of Rousseau, I believe that since soldiers were in control of the Abu Ghraib prison with little oversight and checks on their conduct, violence and torture spread within the prison. To prevent this situation from occurring, I believe that we do need a strict guideline in using torture as a guideline and that checks on the conduct of torture need to be instated.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that containment was an issue in Abu Ghraib, but the orders given to the soldiers were too ambiguous. According to the reports, the guards were not properly monitored or given specific guidance as to how to glean information from detainees. Also,some of the guards had formerly worked at Guantanamo and were now transferred to Abu Ghraib,applied the same form of torture that was used on unlawful combatants to prisoners of war.
DeleteI think Abu Ghraib is a fascinating example of abuses of power. Like the Stanford prison experiment, if you give people the opportunity to abuse power they will do it in almost all cases.
ReplyDelete