For the past several years, the United States has been embroiled in an ongoing debate about the usefulness and morality of employing harsh interrogation tactics (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, face slapping, etc.) to protect our country from another attack like that which occurred on September 11th. Proponents of "enhanced interrogation techniques" argue these methods provide intelligence agents with useful information that has prevented further attacks on the United States, and that they are a necessity in this age of global terrorism. Critics, however, argue that these techniques are tantamount to torture and lead to false confessions and useless intelligence.
In the following editorial, "Survivors Know Best: Torture is Always Wrong," Walter Rodgers argues that the United States should refrain from employing techniques such as waterboarding because using them will "destroy our own decency and humanity."
What do you think? Read Rodgers's article and evaluate the evidence and reasoning he uses to support his argument, and weigh in on this important debate.
Here is the address for the editorial:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Walter-Rodgers/2010/0203/Survivors-know-best-Torture-is-always-wrong
Your response, whether you respond to this or the second option, must be at least 150 words in length and is due by March 4th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I agree with Rodgers in the fact that torture is immoral and destroys our decency and humanity. Throughout the article, he uses many interviews of former torture survivors to provide evidence to why this is. Every victim he interviewed all had the same opinion that torturing doesn’t work. One survivor said that the people who tortured her, made her believe she was going to die, so there was no point to confess anything. Another survivor said that he never revealed anything when he was tortured. Based on the evidence presented by Rodgers and the people he interviewed, torture simply does not work. I personally didn’t have an opinion about torture before reading this article. But after hearing the evidence presented by Rodgers, I feel now that torture is wrong. I watched the YouTube video about Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded and I was amazed at the fact that he only lasted about fifteen seconds. This video shows how waterboarding and torture in general causes people to carry out inhumane and indecent acts of violence. I believe that treating a person like that goes against every national law and moral philosophy that we have. Though about a third of Americans support torture, I think our country took a step towards abolishing torture when President Obama banned waterboarding. This shows that our President is against torture techniques like waterboarding, and is for finding new ways to get vital information that does not require inhumane acts.
Jonathan Hayes
This article definitely made me re-think the use of torture to pry information out of terrorists. Not only can torture physically harm someone, but it can be emotionally disturbing as well. Throughout the article, Rodgers shares many first hand accounts of individuals who have suffered torture. I feel that these first hand accounts were very effective for Rodger's argument against torture. It really makes the reader empathize with those who suffered. A quote I found very interesting from Rodger's article was one where Miguel, a prisoner, described torture saying "Torture is always wrong. It uses terrorism to try to destroy terrorism." To me, this statement was very powerful because it shows the hypocrisy of using torture against terrorists. Using torture to pry information out of someone goes against everything this country stands for. Not only is it morally wrong, but it is also not very effective. An Ethiopian in Rodger's article describes torture saying "Instead of breaking you, it hardens you." These victims become so accustomed to torture, that they do not even budge. This shows that torture is ineffective and incredibly wrong.
-Mallory McSpadden
While Rodgers does make a valid argument for the elimination of torture, he fails to strictly define it. There are many definitions present, ranging from “something that causes agony or pain”1 to “physical pain… equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”2 This lack of specificity brings to question the scope of his argument, as it is hard to determine whether he intends to house enemies of the state in the Hilton, or merely refrain from causing them long term trauma. Also, his research is extremely limited, as he exclusively uses inductive reasoning based on a few survivors and a YouTube video. However, I am not debunking the anti-torture argument, as it has significant merit, yet I believe that Rodgers presents the wrong arguments. Personally, I believe that it is morally wrong to torture the enemy, especially in our current theater of combat, as it degrades whatever moral supremacy we may have and serves as a recruiting tool for the enemy. For example, by torturing the enemy we provide a foundation for whatever lies the enemy may be using to recruit troops. Overall, I believe that while the U.S. is not obligated to treat the enemy with all of the rights of a citizen, it should still refrain from severely degrading and painful interrogation methods.
Jim Burnett
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/torture/law/law.shtml
I really didn’t ever think much of torture at all, but now after reading and thinking about it I think I have somewhat of an opinion. I can understand from each side of the topic, when using torture there will be results from a number of the people; at the same time I can see a number of people not giving in, like in the article when Mary from Uganda said, “First they make you crazy. Next, you believe you’re going to die, so there’s no point in confessing”. Overall I believe I lean more toward being against torture. When it comes down to it you have to think to yourself “if you were in their shoes”, and how would you feel about the topic if you had survived. I do believe there has to be some way that we can get the same information but in a non-terroristic way.
--Jon Cotroneo
I agree “the fallacy of torture,” in Walter Rogers’s commentary, “is the notion that terrorizing others makes us more secure.” We have become a society who accepts what might be inhumane for the protection of others and most certainly the protection of ourselves. I do not know of anyone who has ever been interrogated much less myself; therefore, I was somewhat innocent of this issue. Rogers illustrates through the lives of various torture victims that interrogation techniques have a negative affect. To support this statement, Thomas claims, “instead of breaking you, it [torture] hardens you.” He was proud that he “never revealed anything.” Although I am against this uncivilized tactic, we cannot let those guilty of plotting a bomb succeed. After watching Christopher Hitchens in the waterboarding YouTube clip, I am proud to see that President Obama has banned the technique. I give Hitchens credit for volunteering for this demonstration. At times, the anxiety disorder, Claustrophobia, takes over my body. I feel like I cannot escape the fear of being closed in, and that is comparable to the “slight panic sensation and feeling of being smothered” that Hitchens experienced. We must see passed these techniques. We must try to find a safe and more sufficient form of protection. We can no longer be naïve and inactive. “Pretending it does not also destroy our own decency and humanity,” will in fact, “destroy our own decency and humanity.”
Torture methods such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation, has no place in a military that stands for individual freedom and liberty. There are no if ands and buts when it comes to torture. It’s a very inhumane act that when carried out affects the mental state of that victim not only during the process but post hoc. I think it’s safe to say that those who support torture are no better than the terrorists they pursue as Walter Rogers stated. The methods used also can have a negative effect where the information the torturer is trying to get becomes unattainable due to the captured becoming hardened and unbreakable. The only thing I disagreed with the article was the moment when one of the victim’s solution was “finding an imam ... to sit with the prisoner and let him persuade a suspect it’s morally wrong to take innocent lives.” There are persons who would ignore the fact that torture is wrong for their own security, but to become a inhumane military destroys our own decency as humans.
-Charles Pemberton
Walters writes “A friend told me that when the US tortured people it was somehow more humane.” I think waterboarding is more humane than beating Yvette’s legs with police batons. I watched the YouTube video and he lived through it with no injuries. The Ethiopian worker that said “I never revealed anything” is not a good source of information. Of course he will say that, if he had given up the information, why would he tell a reporter. The people he was protecting by staying silent would kill him for sure if they knew he had ratted them out. In order to obtain information from prisoners of war the United States of America’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” are ok. Waterboarding works according to the documents from the United States Justice department. This technique was used successfully to extract information from an Al-Qaeda member, which prevented an attack on Los Angeles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding or http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46974
If someone has information that can result in the prevention of an attack, get the information. The suspect is not going to lose their life. Try an Imam; then if that doesn’t work, enhance the interrogation. The Ethiopian worker was the only person Walters mentions that was interrogated or waterboarded by the US, and he lived. I don’t think what the US does in their interrogations will “destroy our own decency and humanity”. Even if it does, I prefer their interrogation techniques.
--Jonathan Martin
Rodgers's article carried many good points about how torture is completely immoral and pointless. For example, when one of his interviewees stated, “You think you are losing your mind...I never revealed anything.”, you have a feeling of understanding on how torture can be completely pointless and on how inhumane torture can be. When you carry a thought that your going to die, no matter the outcome, at the end of the torturing, I can see why it would be absolutely pointless to give them what they want. After saying this though, I can understand how torture can be your last option when you desperately need information. If you were to get word on a terrorist attack that could kill hundreds or even more and you captured a person involved with this "future attack" and this person was not willing to give any information about this "future attack", I can agree with trying to get some form of information out of this person through torture. Yes, you might receive false information, but you might receive true information and I think, in this situation, the cause justifies the means.
-Brian Lewis
This is definitely torture and it cannot continue. I believe there is a situation for everything and there are some people that may need to be tortured, but if we allow this to happen daily to people we have no clue what they are there for, how will we know if it is right? I believe we should put an end to it because it will only get worse as we become more comfortable with the idea. Soon we will be employing torture techniques that we would now consider absolutely wrong. We cannot turn our heads to this because eventually the organization in charge of this will not only be torturing people involved with “terrorism” but suspects who may be related to some terrorist or innocent people that may have the appearance of what they call a terrorist. We have no idea why the victims of this are there. They just tell us they are terrorists. Regardless as to how well torture works, it is immoral and should be forbidden.
Michael Brannon
I agree with Rodgers article and his argument that torture is wrong and inhumane. His main argument is about how torture does not work; he provides evidence with former torture victims. They give their testimonies and it is what makes his argument so strong. The reason people torture a person is to get some information from that person about anything and everything. In one of the interviews Rodgers did, a victim said that they would not tell the person torturing them anything because they were scared they were going to die, so they felt there was no use in telling them. Torture not only hurts the victim physically but also emotionally. All the victims who were interviewed said how they were still scared of police sirens and how they have never recovered from what happened to them. Before reading the article, I had no previous knowledge on torture. Now, I agree with Rodgers and that torture is wrong and it does not work in help getting any information out.
Blair Bailey
I would like to begin this response with a Kantian argument that, as moral beings, we are ethically required to extend dignity to those recognized as the same. This is a restatement of the “Golden Rule” and is something that we in the West have always prided ourselves on. This is the basis of our civil rights. How could we deny the rights of other human beings when we are supposed to be fighting for our own rights? What message does this send? This is hypocrisy. Walter Rodgers is right, this hypocrisy degrades our morality and takes us down a path that is shady, with the lines of our values constantly moving for the sake of convenience. At the risk of sending us down a slippery slope, this can only lead to more badness. I will leave you with a quote from Benjamin Franklin, “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither.”
Post a Comment