The word torture carries with it a sense of fear, so that when torture is mentioned one might inwardly flinch at the horrible things that one associates with the word. For example, when I think of torture, I think of waterboarding, cutting off fingers, the medieval stretching machine, and the scene in the movie Taken with Liam Neeson torturing the terrorist for information about his daughter's whereabouts. So we can start the discussion about torture with the basic fact that torture itself is extremely vague. Is a mother who sends their child up to bed without supper a torturer? They caused their child to suffer because of something the child did wrong. Where is the line drawn between punishment and torture? Is torture just an extreme form of punishment? These are questions you must ask yourself before you go on to declare torture this horrible crime. Torture is also completely subjective and depends completely on each situation, as explained in the aforementioned example. If you think the example is silly for being so simplified, think again because it is a situation that follows all the guidelines that befit torture. Do you torture a dog every time you wave a treat in front of his face and force him to perform some stupid trick?
So we have established the lovely ambiguity of torture. The only way to handle this question, it seems, is through examples. Say someone kidnaps YOUR daughter. Your girlfriend or boyfriend. Your dad or mom. And you find them and they know where your loved one is, but they just won't tell you. The moment you begin interrogating your prisoner, you are torturing them. But is it necessary? For you it is. Who is to say the life of your loved one is worth this person's life? They may have wronged you but is it fair for you to put their life in your own hands simply for the safety of your loved one? How about another situation. A terrorist is captured by the CIA and he is the only one who knows where the bomb is that is planted to kill thousands of people at a local office building. Do they torture him and threaten his life to save thousands? Is that when torture becomes necessary? Now think of it as you are the CIA agent in charge of the prisoner and you order no one to touch him. But you receive a phone call informing you that your wife is in that building. Now anything goes, right? But WHY. That terrorist is someone's husband. He means something to his loved ones.
Of course it is easy to play devil's advocate in this situation, so I will answer some of my own questions that I have been asking. I believe torture is completely 100% justified if it is possible to save a life or several lives. Why? Because torture does not kill the person, whereas if they are endangering someone's life by their actions that have caused them to possibly be tortured, then there is a life at risk. In other words, there must be a purpose when it comes to torturing someone. A group of soldiers have captured a member of the opposing army. They are torturing him. Is that right? That enemy soldier may have shot and killed someone. That enemy soldier is fighting for his country and putting his own life at risk just by enlisting. The group of soldiers know that they would befall the same fate if captured by the enemy. But is that right to play the whole "eye for an eye" game? That is another question in itself. I feel that I cannot judge these soldiers that have committed torture until I can truly and honestly put myself in their shoes. I have never been shot at or had someone die right next to me. So I feel the only people that can judge these soldiers in this specific situation would be other soldiers albiet of a higher rank. But again I am playing devil's advocate. Using my justification I stated above that torture requires purpose, it would seem these soldiers are completely unjustified in what they did. But even earlier I stated that torture is completely vague and depends almost entirely on the situation at hand. Therefore, the soldiers in this situation are not completely in the wrong, but I am not in a position to judge them like I said before as well.
I honestly do not think this question can be answered with a solid yes, torture is justified, or no, torture is never justified. There are very strong arguments for both sides.
Your post clearly illustrates your struggle with this issue, your inability to make a definitive statement about torture. You're certainly right in that both sides offer compelling arguments, and typically an individual's leanings on the issue are based in religious, moral, or ethical beliefs that exist independently of the issue itself. Perhaps most concrete here is your distinction between torturing and killing. If torture will not result in the death of the tortured, but could possibly result in avoiding the deaths of others, then a possible justification can be made. This, I think, is your ultimate view, the closest you get to a definitive answer, because you place identifiable parameters upon the situation (if we are, of course, speaking in terms of militaristic torture and not motherly torture :)). Also, I'm not sure we can define all of these instances as torture--the mother sending her child to bed without supper is intended to have a prolonged POSITIVE effect on the child despite the temporary negative effect, whereas torture of a prisoner happens to benefit others but does not benefit the prisoner.
ReplyDelete