With the current trends in global terrorism and counter terrorism movements, one word which is inescapable is torture. Its likely use, effects and its moral grounding have come into increased scrutiny and have gained more prominence in world news in the recent past. This is after the September 11th attack on America and the subsequent “War on Terror” campaign that is spearheaded by the U.S.
This ‘war’ has led to the “extraordinary rendition” of suspects to prisons in other countries for “interrogation”.According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (1984) , torture is defined 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."However the protections offered by the United Nation’s Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is only applicable to only 144 countries which are signees to the convention. Is it admissible? Torture has always been used to get information from suspects. The use of violence to force compliance has a history as old as humanity itself.
In the Medieval or Dark Ages the type of torture used was more brutal though organized. Some of the devices that were used were: the rack, the Iron Maiden which was a coffin with spiked interior and ‘the Judas Cradle’. There are many forms of torture. Some are physical, like the ones used in the medieval ages, while others are more psychological like water-boarding and sleep deprivation.Admissibility of torture as a way of extracting information or admitting the information got through the act of torture has been argued extensively among various governments, human right groups and other international organizations.
One of the most controversial arguments in favor of torture has come to be known as the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario. It argues that supposing a terrorist is caught and it is suspected that he has information about a bomb, say a nuclear bomb, that is about to go off, should “moderate physical pressure” be used to get the information that may save the lives of many people? The argument in favor of torture suggests that if the information is extracted then many lives will be saved. It looks at torture as a means to an end.The weakness with this argument is that, under duress, it has been proved that most of the information provided are mostly inaccurate, if not true, which makes it irrelevant in most instances. This reason, besides the reason that torture degrades and corrupts those using it or who allow it, is what those who oppose torture give in not accepting the admission of torture or information acquired through torture. In a survey carried out by BBC of some 27,000 people across the world in about in 25 countries in October of 2006, about a third of the people in nine of the countries surveyed thought that degree of torture was acceptable if it saved lives.
The opposition was highest in European countries. In another such survey carried out by Pew Research Centre back in 2005 in America found that almost half of Americans considered torturing of terrorist suspects terrorists justified (Basoglu, 1992) Indeed it has been shown anti-torture sentiments are high in countries that experience relative calm and with little history of terrorist attacks.In the surveys it was noted that anti-torture sentiment, say in Italy, was 68% as compared to the case in Israel with 47% who were against the use of torture. Actually it is only in Israel where “moderate physical pressure” is openly allowed “as a last resort.
” In Britain, the House of Lords, the final court of appeal on points of law for the whole of the United Kingdom, declared that evidence got by torturing suspects, irrespective of the person doing it, is not admissible in any British court. This effectively overturned an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal of Britain to the effect that such evidence was admissible.The case in question was that involving some 10 men are known informally as the Belmarsh detainees, who were held for a long time in secrecy. They were suspected to have been involved in the September 11th attacks on the US but there was lack of sufficient evidence to convict them. Recently the US has also banned “torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming”.
In an executive order by President Bush, there is an establishment of stricter limits to the methods employed by the CIA in interrogating suspects. These are in compliance with the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners (Basoglu, 1992). It can therefore be said that torture is not admissible.Its effects on victims and perpetrators.
Torture has effects on both the perpetrator and the victim. Even though, arguably, it has much more adverse effects on the victim than on the perpetrator. The victim’s suffering may be twofold; mentally (psychologically) and physically. The perpetrator may only suffer, in the long term, psychologically (Gorman, 2001).
Most of the torture techniques employed today, though psychological in nature, is in a way also physical. The methods are designed to have maximum psychological impact on the person while leaving very little in form of trace and the physical injuries or pain experienced during the process is transient.One of the techniques used is water-boarding this is drowning simulation where the victim is submerged in water for a period of time. He is however removed when the perpetrator thinks the victim is out of breath. The aim of this type of torture is to almost suffocate the victim into submission.
The victim who fears such agonizing experience-grasping for air- can give the information so as to avoid the torture. Even though it has no long term serious medical problem, the victim may be induced into a state where he even fears water after undergoing such treatment (Conroy, 2000). Other techniques involve includes subjecting a person to long standing hours of about 40 hours.This leaves their muscles immobile and the person gets so tired that he can release information just so that they can sit down.
Another is injecting a person with a strong anti-sleep agent. This deprives the victim of sleep leaving him tired and in want of sleep. One reason why there is resort to psychological torture is that it is not easy to prove that it occurred, particularly when the victim underwent the process in the past. There are also cases of death of those who undergo some of the torture processes. Sometimes the course of their death is recorded as ‘natural courses’ (Arrigo, 2004).
Survivors of such acts often have lasting mental and physical health problems. Some of the more likely problems that such people undergo include brain injury, dementia, chronic pain syndromes, and muscles problems among others. It is also not very uncommon to have victims who are insane due to the treatment they received at the hands of the perpetrators.There are a wide ranging mental health complications that may also arise from torture, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety disorders are just a few in the category. For the perpetrator, psychological tendencies tend to take place due to prolonged exposure to such environment.
The psychological disorder may take two totally different directions: withdrawal or a psychopathic tendency. One undergoes withdrawal he/she does not seem to associate well with others in the society. They tend to be loners. When this goes to the extreme they may even be insane.
On the other hand those who portray psychopathic tendencies always find joy in inflicting pain.They embrace the sadistic tendencies which lead to mental imbalance later on (Arrigo, 2004). Society that condones torture. All in all having seen and highlighted torture as a vice, irrespective of the motive of doing it, it is therefore clear that society should not entertain torture. Societies, however, to some small extent condone torture. As highlighted in the survey carried out, globally the opposition towards torture stood at 56%.
It however also showed that countries that that countries that were most susceptible to terrorist attacks were more reluctant to oppose torture in it entirety than those countries that have not experienced or have experienced very little terrorist attacks.In some cases it can be argued that there is justification for use of “moderate physical pressure” to get information from a person believed to be holding information which, if got, will help save the lives of many people. However the main question is how much is “moderate physical pressure”? For example the use of water boarding technique on al Qaeda’s toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Even though he cracked and revealed information that lead to various successful operations, it was found out that he was mad and suffered from multiple personality disorder (Allodi, 1991).
The fact that even US has admitted and reformed it policy on treatment of prisoners held in custody out of their area of jurisdiction is a pointer to the fact that no matter the reason, torture is not the solution.The human rights groups having pressured the US government to allow the Red Cross to examine the US facilities in Gautama Bay – Cuba shows a resolve to the fact that the sanctity of human life should be upheld at whatever cost. Any society normal society that condones torture, in all sense of the word, or any inhuman treatment of persons can be said has not suffered the ills that are associated with torture, the pain that the victims have to live with, the fear that they undergo whenever they are reminded of the experience.ReferencesAllodi, F. A. (1991).
Assessment and Treatment of Torture Victims: A Critical Review. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 179, 4-11.Arrigo, J. M. (2004).
A Utilitarian Argument against Torture Interrogation of Terrorists. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(3), 1-30.Basoglu, M. (Ed.).
(1992). Torture and its Consequences: Current Treatment Approaches. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Conroy, J. (2000). Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.United Nations (1984). Proceedings from UN convention 1984: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, UN: Geneva,: Switzerland.Gorman, W. (2001). Refugee survivors of torture: Trauma and treatment.
Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 32, 443-451.
